THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

PRESENTED  BY 

PROF.  CHARLES  A.  KOFOID  AND 

MRS.  PRUDENCE  W.  KOFOID 


% 


V 


ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 


\ 


CONTRIBUTORS 

REV.  G.  A.  JOHNSTON  ROSS,  M.A. 

REV.  FATHER  W.  J.  CROFTON,  SJ.,  M.A. 

JOHN  M.  ROBERTSON,   ESQ.,  M.P. 

REV.  CANON  MACCULLOCH 

REV.   P.  A.  GORDON  CLARK 

REV.  PROFESSOR  COOPER,  D.D. 

REV.  DAVID  SMITH,  M.A.,  D.D. 

REV.  JAMES  ROBERTSON  CAMERDN,  M.A. 

REV.  P.  CARNEGIE  SIMPSON,  M.A. 

REV.  FATHER  POWER,  S.J.,  B.A. 


RELIGION    AND    THE 
MODERN   MIND 


LECTURES  DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE 
GLASGOW  UNIVERSITY  SOCIETY  OF  ST  NINIAN 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION  BY 

DONALD  MACALISTER,  M.A.,  M.D.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D. 

VICE-CHANCELLOR  AND  PRINCIPAL  OP 
GLASGOW  UNIVERSITY 


HODDER  AND  STOUGHTON 
LONDON    MCMVIII 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/earlybiblesofameOOwrigrich 


INTRODUCTION 

In  Glasgow,  as  in  other  Universities,  students  have 
long  been  accustomed  to  form  themselves  into 
societies  for  the  common  study  of  special  subjects, 
or  for  the  promotion  of  special  ends.  The 
Dialectic,  Philosophical,  Theological,  Historical, 
Physical,  and  other  Societies  exist  mainly  for 
discussion;  the  Missionary,  Temperance,  University 
Settlement,  Christian  Union,  and  several  Church 
Societies,  have  in  view  co-operative  effort  of  a 
practical  kind.  In  the  aggregate  these  Societies 
cover  well  the  wide  field  of  student  interest  and 
activity.  Not  a  few  concern  themselves  only  with 
particular  departments  of  ethical  or  religious 
speculation,  learning,  or  practice ;  just  as  others 
devote  all  their  attention  to  science  or  letters, 
though  their  members  may  of  course  be  indivi- 
dually interested  in  various  aspects  of  religion. 
To  counteract  a  certain  tendency  to  segregation 


vi  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

between  the  two  groups,  it  appeared  to  some 
earnest  undergraduates,  among  whom  I  would 
here  mention  Mr  W.  L.  Marsh,  that  there  was 
need  for  still  another  discussion  society,  which 
should  be  neither  sectional  nor  exclusive  in  its 
treatment  of  religion.  Such  a  society  might 
become  a  meeting-point  for  all  students,  whatever 
their  academic  faculty  or  their  attitude  to  current 
beliefs  and  organisations,  who  desired  to  investigate 
with  candour  modern  problems  of  religious  faith 
and  duty.  The  project  approved  itself  to  many, 
and  the  Society  of  St  Ninian  was  founded.  It 
was  named  after  the  great  religious  teacher  who, 
in  the  third  century,  redeemed  the  south-west 
of  Scotland  from  pagan  ignorance. 

As  the  precise  statement  of  a  problem  is  the 
first  step  to  its  solution,  the  new  Society  adopted 
a  method  of  its  own  to  secure  that  its  discussions 
should  not  be  mere  beating  of  the  air.  It  chose 
first  certain  cardinal  questions  for  study  during  the 
session.  On  these  it  invited  men  of  repute  for 
character  and  learning  to  deliver  public  addresses, 
each  from  his  special  point  of  view.  Then  after 
sufficient  interval  for  reflection,  the  questions  thus 


INTRODUCTION  vii 

formulated  by  the  experts  were  handled   in  free 
debate  at  meetings  of  the  students  themselves. 

This  volume  contains  most  of  the  public 
addresses  with  which  the  Society  was  favoured. 
Their  range,  variety,  and  interest,  the  eminence  of 
their  authors,  and  the  remarkable  stimulation  of 
thought  and  enquiry  they  induced  in  their  hearers, 
make  it  unnecessary  for  me  to  do  more  than 
express,  on  behalf  of  the  Society  and  the 
University,  our  gratitude  for  the  privilege  of 
offering  them  to  a  larger  audience.  They  will 
speak  for  themselves  to  all  who  realise,  with  the 
eloquent  preacher  who  gave  the  inaugural  discourse, 
that  in  the  quest  of  the  highest  knowledge  '^  men 
need  patience,  fidelity  to  their  ignorance,  freedom 
from  pride  and  prejudice,  sacrificial  love  of  truth, 
the  spirit  of  adventure,  and  the  spirit  of  reverence." 

Donald  MacAlister. 

The  University  of  Glasgow,  1908. 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

The  Glasgow  University  Society  of  St  Ninian 
was  founded  in  1907.  In  Principal  MacAlister's 
Introduction  will  be  found  a  statement  of  the 
objects  of  the  Society  and  the  success  that  at- 
tended its  efforts. 

Some  of  the  members  may  perceive,  in  the 
present  arrangement  of  the  lectures,  a  lack  of 
that  unity  and  continuity  which  characterised  the 
original  syllabus ;  but  the  omissions  have  been 
inevitable,  mainly  because  of  publishers'  rights. 

Those  who  are  interested  will  find,  at  the  end 
of  the  book,  the  complete  syllabuses  for  last  session 
and  the  coming  one. 

The  book  has  been  seen  through  the  Press,  and 
the  Index  prepared,  by  Mr  R.  T.  Clark,  Secretary 
of  the  Society. 

W.  L.  Marsh 

President. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION v 


PRINCIPAL  DONALD  MACALISTER,  M.D.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  ETC. 
GLASGOW. 


THE  RELIGIONIST  AND  THE  SCIENTIST  .  .  i 

REV.  G.  A.  JOHNSTON  ROSS,  M.A.,  CAMBRIDGE. 

SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION     .  .  .  .  .19 

REV.  FATHER  W.  J.  CROFTON,  S.J.,  M.A.,  GLASGOW. 

COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY  AND   THE   CLAIMS  OF 

REVELATION        ......         37 

JOHN  M.  ROBERTSON,  ESQ.,  M.P.,  LONDON. 

COMPARATIVE    RELIGION     AND     THE     CHRISTIAN 

FAITH         .......         6i 

REV.  CANON  J.  A.  MACCULLOCH,  PORTREE. 

COMPARATIVE   RELIGION   AND   THE   RELIGION   OF 

JESUS  .......         99 

REV.  P.  A.  GORDON  CLARK,  PERTH. 

xi 


xii  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

PAGE 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF   THE    HOLY    AND    UNDIVIDED 

TRINITY     .......       135 

REV.  PROFESSOR  COOPER,  D.D.,  GLASGOW. 

THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS     .  .  .  .  .159 

REV.  DAVID  SMITH,  M.A.,  D.D.,  BLAIRGOWRIE. 

THE  ANSWER  OF  IDEALISM  TO  AGNOSTICISM         .       183 
REV.  JAMES  ROBERTSON  CAMERON,  M.A.,  GLASGOW. 

AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA,  METHOD,  AND  LIFE  .       215 

REV.  P.  CARNEGIE  SIMPSON,  M.A.,  GLASGOW. 

THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM  .  .  .  •       *3S 

REV.  FATHER  M.  POWER,  S.J.,  B.A.,  EDINBURGH. 

INDICES  .......       281 


THE  RELIGIONIST  AND  THE  SCIENTIST, 
by  the  Rev.  G.  A.  JOHNSTON  ROSS,  M.A., 
Cambridge. 


THE  RELIGIONIST  AND  THE  SCIENTIST 

The  task  of  defining  the  relations  of  science  and 
religion,  and  of  attempting  to  draw  the  lines  of 
their  reconciliation  should  be  undertaken  only  by- 
men  who  know  both  science  and  religion,  and 
know  each  by  the  methods  and  kind  of  know- 
ledge appropriate  to  each :  science  by  patient 
and  first-hand  investigation  of  phenomena,  and 
religion  by  intimate  self-disciplined  experience  of 
its  power. 

No  such  position  would  I  for  a  moment  dare 
or  consent  to  occupy ;  I  speak  only  as  a  Christian 
minister,  whose  ministry  proceeds  upon  a  certain 
conception  of  the  relation  between  the  religionist 
and  the  scientist.  I  shall  try  to  state  simply  what 
that  conception  is :  beyond  personal  testimony  I 
cannot  go. 

I  conceive,  then,  of  my  relation  as  a  Christian 
minister  to  my  brother  the  student  and  exponent 
of  science  under  four  aspects  : — 

I.  Independence. — I  think  the  fundamental 
feeling  I  have  about  the  work  of  my  fellow-student 
whose  field  is  science  is  this :  that  if  he  has  his 
mass  of  facts  and  realities  to  deal  with,  to  rationalise 

9 


4  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

and  explain,  so,  emphatically,  have  I  as  a  re- 
ligionist, mine.  There  are  certain  popular  concep- 
tions which  broadly  and  roughly  distinguish  the 
two  spheres.  VpThe  scientist's  facts  are  '■^  external  ": 
mine  iaternal.  The  scientist's  facts  are  *' natural": 
mine  moral.  He  speaks  of  his  facts  in  the 
language  of  mechanism  :  I  of  mine  in  the  lan- 
guage of  freedom.  He  deals  with  courses  and 
sequences  of  phenomena  :  I  with  origins^  purpose^ 
and  destiny  I  do  not  claim  that  the  two  spheres 
are  unrelated,  nor  assert  that  they  do  not  inter- 
penetrate one  another.  I  believe,  on  the  contrary, 
that  we  are  only  at  the  beginning  of  the  science 
of  their  mutual  interpenetration. 

But_  I  do  claim  that  my  facts  are  at  least  as  real 
as  the  scientist's  facts :  that  is  (to  borrow  a 
clever  illustration),  if  the  scientific  man  says, 
"This  room  was  swept  with  a  broom,"  I  as  re- 
ligionist am  saying  as  real  a  thing  when  I  say, 
''  This  room  was  swept  with  a  purpose." ;  or  again, 
that  if  a  man  commits  a  murder,  his  guilty  con- 
science  is  as  real  as  the  corpse  of  the  person  he 
has  murdered. 

Further,  if  the  scientist  has  any  reason  to 
believe  that  the  mass  of  facts  with  which  he  deals, 
and  which  he  sees  about  him  in  an  alluring  disorder, 
are  really,  behind  all,  an  ordered  cosmos, — I  also 
have  as  good  reason  to  believe  that  my  world  of 
moral    facts   is    (if    only    1   could    arrive    at   it), 


RELIGIONIST  AND  SCIENTIST         5 

behind    all,    an   ordered  cosmos,   which    it  is  my 
business  to  try  to  reach. 

You  may  try  to  bewilder  me  by  questions  as  to 
the    validity    of   knowledge,    and    the    nature    of 
reality,  and  the  absurdities  of  dualism ;  but  to  the    \ 
idea    that    the    scientist    is    dealing    with    things    \ 
more    real    than   I,   I  will   yield,   no,   not  for  an     f 
hour.  ^ 

^' We  are  coming,"  someone  has  said,  "to  see 
increasingly  the  value  and  the  claim  of  the  prima 
facie  view  of  life  " ;  and  ih^it  prima  facie  view  shows 
me  that  the  materials  of  religion  are  real,  as  real 
as  the  stuiF  of  which  the  world  is  made.  The 
student  of  nature  comes  clpse  to  them,  yet  the 
most  real  of  them  all  he  never,  qua  student  of 
nature,  quite  touches  ;  yet  they  are  there,  dislocat- 
ing or  repairing  our  life.  I  am  a  religious  man, 
because  the  facts  are  there  :  I  am  a  religious  agent^ 
because  they  press  on  me  with  a  pressure  which  I 
interpret  as  a  vocation  specially  to  deal  with  them: 
I  am  a  Christian  religious  agent,  because  Chris- 
tianity deals  so  adequately,  so  drastically  with 
them,  with  such  a  volume  of  intellectual  and 
moral  power. 

II.  Comradeship. — But  now  let  me  hasten  to 
supplement  this  view  of  the  two  spheres  as  distinct 
by  the  conception  of  comradeship.  I  lift  my  eyes 
from  my  study  of  the  facts  of  religion,  those 
facts    whose    reality    I    have  been  claiming,   and 


6  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

I  look  over  to  my  friend  who  is  studying  the 
phenomena  of  nature,  and  mentally  say  we  are 
comrades. 

(i)  Comrades  in  Work. — I  think  of  us  both  as 
working  at  an  unfinished  problem :  he  on  his 
section,  I  on  mine.  I  do  not  hope  that  either  he 
or  I  will  live  in  this  world  to  see  the  work  finished. 
I  believe  there  will  be  a  finish,  a  solution  of  ^'the 
riddle  of  this  painful  earth,"  and  that  the  examina- 
tion of  nature  and  the  study  of  spirit  will  both 
come  home  and  attain  a  harmonious  unity  in  that 
day  of  completion.  Misunderstandings  will  then 
be  impossible,  but  meanwhile  as  incidents  of 
progress  they  are  almost  inevitable;  for  each,  the 
scientist  and  the  religionist,  sees,  when  he  looks 
across  at  the  other,  only  unfinished  work,  and  he 
may  not  know  how  very  unfinished  it  is.  But  it 
needs  just  the  recollection  of  the  fact  that  the  work 
is  unfinished  to  dispel  the  misunderstanding  and 
replace  it  by  patient  comradeship. 

I  lay  stress  on  this,  because  I  cannot  but  feel 
that  here  the  religionist  has  often  been  sadly 
deserving  of  blame.  He  has  not  been  frank 
enough  about  the  unfinished  character  of  his 
work.  He  has  been  tempted  to  regard  religion 
and  the  explanation  of  moral  phenomena  as  a 
completed  thing,  an  ordered,  rounded  system  of 
thought,  needing  only  to  be  announced  and 
illustrated.     He  is  learning  more  slowly  than  the 


RELIGIONIST  AND  SCIENTIST         7 

scientist  to  discard  a  priori  theories,  and  go  to 
school  to  the  facts  and  proceed  cautiously  to 
generalisations. 

And  this  forgetfulness  of  the  fact  that,  while 
experience  grows,  and  ever  larger  and  fuller  bodies 
of  experience  are  coming  into  view,  theology  can 
never  be  anything  but  an  unfinished  and  progressive 
science — this  has  made  the  religionist  sometimes 
imperious,  and  lordly,  and  impatient,  and  dogmatic. 
And  the  scientist  too,  in  the  earlier  stages  of  his 
attendance  at  the  school  of  experience,  showed 
sometimes  that  he  had,  unhappily,  caught  the 
trick  of  dogmatism  and  of  the  arrogance  of  the 
man  who  makes  haste  to  regard  his  work  as 
finished. 

The  danger  is,  I  think,  less  to-day  than  it  has 
ever  been.  Before  the  religionist  no  less  than 
before  the  scientist  new  areas  of  fact  and  ex- 
perience are  opening  up,  with  regard  to  which  the 
student  has  to  orientate  himself;  and  where  the 
vastness  of  these  areas  is  most  appreciated,  there 
a  modest  sense  of  being  but  a  beginner  makes 
directly  toward  a  sense  of  kindly  collaboration  with 
beginners  in  other  vast  fields  of  research.  And 
this  comradeship  in  work  gives  also  the  sense  of 

(2)  Comradeship  in  Discipline. — Both  of  us 
(the  student  of  religion  and  the  student  of  science) 
can  see  that  we  are  simultaneously  being  taught 
humility  and  patience  by  many  failures,  and  the 


8  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

foolishness  of  intellectual  pride  by  the  supersession 
and  superannuation  of  much  that  once  was  counted 
vital  and  final.  Both  of  us  are  simultaneously- 
being  educated  in  the  school  of  awe  and  wonder 
at  the  vastness  and  complexity  of  the  universe : 
both  of  us  feel  on  our  brows  the  breath  of  a 
morning  of  high  hope;  for  the  more  we  know 
of  the  universe,  the  more  numerous  become  the 
suggestions  of  order,  and  the  more  excitingly  near 
do  we  seem  to  come  to  a  satisfactory  demonstration 
that  the  whole  system  is  one  rational  unity. 

Subjected,  then,  to  one  common  disciphne,  yet 
sustained  by  one  common  hope,  we  may  well  look 
across  at  one  another,  not  with  hostility  or  fear, 
but  with  the  level,  earnest  eyes  of  mutual  respect 
and  of  the  expectation  of  useful  suggestion. 

But  there  is  more  than  comradeship :  on  the 
religionist's  side  there  is  profound  and  far-reaching 

III.  Debtorship. — The  religionist  of  to-day  is 
deep  in  the  debt  of  his  brethren  the  students  of 
science.  Theological  readjustment — changes  for 
the  better  in  the  presentation  of  religion — owe  far 
more  to  natural  science  than  they  do  either  to 
philosophy  or  criticism. 

I  have  neither  the  space  nor  the  ability  to 
enumerate  all  the  items  of  that  debt ;  but  I  should 
like  to  mention  three  ways  in  which  the  scientist's 
emphasis  on  the  uniformity  of  nature  has  reacted 
advantageously  on  the  religious  mind  of  to-day.     I 


RELIGIONIST  AND  SCIENTIST         9 

remind  myself  of  these  three  items  of  my  debt  by 
three  words  that  represent  three  new  emphases  in 
rehgion  :   Unity ^  Law,  Progress. 

(i)  Unity. — Lord  Morley  says  somewhere  that 
"  unseen  and  thin  as  fine  filaments  of  air  are  the 
threads  that  draw  opinion  to  opinion " :  and  in 
many  ways  the  scientist's  emphasis  on  uniformity 
will  be  found  to  account  for  the  frequency  with 
which  the  word  ''  unity "  is  now  heard  on  the 
theologian's  lips. 

The  theologian  has  begun,  for  instance,  to 
think  once  more,  and  fruitfully,  on  a  subject 
which  had  been  thought  empty  and  dessicated 
like  one  of  Euclid's  axioms,  viz.  the  unity  of 
God. 

Let  me  put  in  Dr  Gwatkin's  words  the  link 
between  science  and  this  truth  of  religion : — 

"  What  we  mean  by  saying  that  the  physical 
universe  is  governed  by  general  laws  is  that  know- 
ledge is  impossible  unless  the  whole  system  is  at 
least  a  rational  unity  whatever  else  it  may  be. 
And  this  means  that  if  force  be  its  moving  power, 
there  must  be  one  force  and  no  more :  and  if  God, 
there  must  be  one  God  and  no  more." 

It  is  to  that  last  sentence  I  desire  to  draw  your 
attention.  Science  has  proclaimed  aloud  its  mono- 
dynamism  :  theology  has  overheard,  and  has  been 
startled  into  a  new  understanding  of  its  own 
monotheism. 


lo  ST  N  INI  AN  LECTURES 

And  there  was  nothing  that  theology  needed 
more  than  this  new  emphasis  on  the  truth  that 
there  is  only  one  God,  only  one  source  of  truth, 
only  one  source  of  goodness,  only  one  source  of 
life. 

For  there  would  seem  to  have  descended 
from  past  ages  an  inveterate  provincialism  in  the 
theological  mind. 

Theology  has  been  content  to  be  departmental, 
notoriously,  in  its  view  of  the  sphere  and  method 
of  the  working  of  God.  The  whole  conception 
of  God  was  impoverished  and  withered  by  ecclesi- 
asticism ;  and  regions  of  His  working,  where  the 
theologian  should  have  bowed  in  reverence  before 
the  sacraments  of  God's  patient  direction  of  men, 
were  passed  coldly  by  as  secular,  and  outside 
the  Divine  pale.  God's  universe  was  thus  made 
a  house  divided  against  itself,  and  monotheism 
emptied  of  much  of  its  power  and  value. 

Happily,  now,  owing  to  the  emphasis  laid  by 
science  on  the  unity  in  things  visible,  we  have 
gained  a  conception  of  God's  working  that  is 
at  once  wider,  more  comprehensive,  and  more 
thorough  and  intimate.  A  God  who  is  an 
absentee  from  any  part  of  the  universe,  who  hates, 
despises,  or  forgets  anything  that  He  has  made,  is 
now  an  impossibility  for  theology :  we  have  been 
rebuked  by  science,  not  for  introducing  the  idea 
of  God  at  all,  but   for  being  unfaithful    to  our 


RELIGIONIST  AND  SCIENTIST        ii 

monotheism,  and  for  not  introducing  Him  far 
enough,  and  for  not  thinking  with  sufficient 
definiteness  of  His  presence  and  agency  as 
universal. 

And  with  this  new  emphasis  on  the  unity  of 
God  has  come  also,  through  the  gospel  of  science, 
a  new  sense  of  the  unity  and  solidarity  of  the 
human  race — a  truth  without  which,  as  Mazzini 
said,  there  is  no  religion. 

I  must  not  attempt  to  detain  you  by  trying  to 
set  forth  the  ways  in  which  this  new  emphasis 
on  the  oneness  of  humanity  has  reacted  on  the 
thought  of  our  time;  but  the  least  observant 
amongst  us  must  have  noticed  how,  under  its 
pressure,  false,  artificial,  and  mischievous  distinc- 
tions in  place  and  privilege  amongst  the  individuals 
and  races  of  the  earth  (distinctions  which  an  over- 
confident thought  in  earlier  generations  traced 
even  up  to  the  eternal  councils  of  God)  have  been 
driven  into  obscurity,  and  how  the  newer  concep- 
tion of  man,  and  of  the  unity  of  his  life,  has  made 
for  kindlier  international  relationships,  saner  and 
more  intelligent  views  of  the  responsibility  for 
Christian  missions,  wider  appreciation  of  the  value 
and  responsibilities  of  grouped  lives,  and  especially 
(that  which  so  ministers  to-day  to  hope  in  the 
sphere  of  theology)  an  expectant  and  docile 
observation  of  developments  of  thought  and  life  in 
the  Far  East. 


12  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

These  are  some  of  the  ways  in  which  the 
scientific  emphasis  on  unity  has  reacted  on  the 
theological  mind.     Take  another  item  of  debt : 

(2)  Law. — The  emphasis  upon  law  may  almost 
be  called  the  differentia  of  science,  as  the  emphasis 
on  freedom  is  the  difierentia  of  religion. 

Religion,  dealing  with  moral  acts  and  their 
consequences,  has  staked,  and  rightly  staked,  her 
whole  existence  on  the  possibility  of  forgiveness 
and  repair. 

Science,  dealing  with  facts  and  consequences  in 
the  natural  sphere,  has  necessarily  emphasised 
retribution. 

Now,  I  am  not  going  to  be  so  foolish  as  to 
attempt  a  harmonisation  of  these  two  voices  (I 
am  here,  as  I  said,  to  testify  and  not  to  expound). 
And  my  testimony  is  this,  that  at  least  in  evan- 
gelical circles  the  popular  conception  of  forgiveness 
sadly  needed  the  counter-emphasis  of  science  on 
retribution  and  the  inviolability  of  law.  Mark 
you,  I  do  not  for  a  moment  say  that  religion  now 
needs  to  utter  her  message  of  forgiveness  with 
bated  breath  or  uncertain  tone;  but  I  do  mean 
to  say  that  she  needed  (and  has  been  compelled) 
to  re-examine  her  definition  of  forgiveness  that  it 
might  be  brought  once  more  into  line  with  the 
facts  of  life.  I  assert  that  there  were  whole  vast 
areas  of  evangelical  religion  where  a  conception 
of  forgiveness  was  prevalent,  which  simply  would 


RELIGIONIST  AND  SCIENTIST        13 

not  square  with  the  facts  of  life,  and  where  for 
need  of  such  a  corrective  as  science  has  furnished 
there  was  the  most  appalling  blindness  to  these  facts 
of  life,  with  the  inevitable  stream  of  consequences 
to  public  morality.  To-day  the  stern  reminders 
which  science  has  sent  us  of  the  divinity  of  law 
have  most  healthily  affected  our  gospel  message 
and  made  it  more  virile  and  robust.  Far  more 
confidently  than  ever  may  we  say  that  God  loves 
us :  but  it  is  good  that  we  have  been  reminded 
that  all  is  law,  if  all  is  love,  and  law  is  the  way 
God  loves  us. 

(3)  Progress. — And  then  if  we  on  the  side  of 
religion  have  learned  from  science's  emphasis  on 
unity  and  on  law,  what  have  5^e  not  learned  from 
her  emphasis  on  ordered  progress  ? 

"We  are  all,"  the  saying  is,  "evolutionists 
now."  That  means,  I  take  it,  not  that  we  claim 
to  be  scientists,  nor  even  wholly  to  understand 
the  theory  of  evolution  and  the  part  played  in  it 
by  the  principle  of  natural  selection,  but  that  the 
evolutionary  idea  has  coloured  our  thinking  on 
nearly  everything.  It  has  revolutionised  the 
presentation  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  has 
almost  fundamentally  altered  our  view  of  Holy 
Scripture,  of  the  history  it  contains,  and  of  the 
doctrines  it  unfolds.  It  has,  I  believe,  had  a  very 
close  connection  with  the  revival  of  historical 
studies,  and  has  even  for  the  least  religious  mind 


14  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

suffused  history,  if  I  may  so  speak,  with  the 
Providential  idea.  It  has  opened  out  to  the 
religious  man  a  new  view  of  the  relations  between 
what  his  fathers  called  secular  history,  and  the 
sacred  history  in  the  Scriptures.  And,  above  all, 
it  has  set  Christ  in  a  new  Ught.  Confined  within 
human  limits.  He  is  the  stultification  of  the 
calculations  of  evolutionists;  viewed  as  our 
moral  natures  direct  us  to  view  him,  He  is  the 
goal  and  crown  of  the  evolutionary  process  in 
the  history  of  man. 

As  one  surveys  the  field  of  our  indebtedness  as 
religionists  to  that  discipline  of  natural  inquiry  (in 
the  triumphs  of  which  we  recognise  a  special 
manifestation  of  the  Holy  Ghost),  our  sense  of 
debtorship  to  science  passes  into  a  sense  of 
debtorship  to  God,  and  gratitude  to  man  passes 
into  a  thankful  worship  of  God.  If  our  brethren 
who  study  natural  science  do  not  all  as  yet  join 
us  in  this  transmutation  of  gratefulness  into 
worship,  we  shall  not  lose  hope  that  ultimately 
they  will  do  this  too ;  for  if  there  is  one  portion 
of  the  universe  more  than  another  in  which 
evidences  of  evolutionary  design  are  manifest,  it  is 
in  the  marvellous  growth  of  the  school  of  science 
itself,  and  it  is  the  best  and  humblest  pupils  in 
that  school  who  will  most  certainly  recognise  that 
behind  themselves  and  their  work  is  a  power,  not 
themselves,  that  makes  for  knowledge  and  truth. 


RELIGIONIST  AND  SCIENTIST        15 

(4)  Benefactor  ship. — And  now  as  I  close  I  must 
mention  one  other  aspect  in  which  I,  as  an  agent 
of  religion,  look  upon  my  friend  who  works  in  the 
laboratory  of  science. 

It  is  not  enough  to  claim  an  equal  right  with  him 
or  an  equal  status  as  a  student  of  realities ;  nor  to 
feel  that  his  work  and  one's  own  in  a  very  real 
sense  constitute  a  collaboration;  nor  even  to  express 
one's  debt  to  science.  One  must  do  more :  one 
must  claim  that  religion  has  something  to  give  the 
man  of  science.  It  is  good  that  one  should  own 
to  debtorship ;  but  one  must  claim,  in  the  name  of 
one's  message,  benefactorship  as  well. 

I  said  at  the  beginning  that  the  facts  with  which 
the  scientist  deals  have  to  do  with  successions  of 
phenomena,  with  processes  and  sequences;  while 
religion  deals  with  origins,  with  purpose,  and  with 
destiny. 

Yes ;  but  the  scientist  cannot  escape  from  the 
fact  that  he  possesses  certain  moral  experiences 
which  continually  impinge  upon  questions  of  origin, 
purpose,  and  destiny ;  and  {^qud  scientist)  he  has 
no  faculty  and  no  materials  for  dealing  with  these 
moral  experiences. 

But  the  exponent  of  religion  has  that  material, 
and  the  exponent  of  the  Christian  religion  has  it 
in  unrivalled  richness. 

The  scientist  needs  religion  not  only  when  shaken 
by  storms  of  sorrow  or  remorse ;  he  needs  religion 


1 6  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

to  relieve  the  malaise  of  spiritual  hunger  and  dis- 
content, to  hearten  him  in  the  midst  of  these 
nameless  faintings  oi  faith  in  life  which  come  to 
the  believer  and  unbeliever  alike ;  to  quiet,  if  not 
to  explain,  turbulent  moods  of  the  spirit,  which,  in 
all,  tend  to  overset  the  balance  of  self-poise  in  the 
face  of  life's  troubles ;  to  nourish  and  respond  to 
aspirations,  without  the  uplift  of  which,  life  were 
a  poor  and  jejune  thing;  to  fortify  and  prepare, 
not  so  much  for  death  as  for  judgment,  of  which 
last  the  unbeliever  has  as  definite  an  instinct  as  the 
Christian  has  ;  and,  finally,  to  transmute  into  a  glad 
certainty,  through  Jesus  Christ,  his  hopeful  guesses 
about  immortality. 

Unless  I  had  messages  like  these  to  give  them, 
I,  for  one,  could  not  dare  to  preach  week  after  week 
to  men  who  know  so  much  more  than  I  of  the  works 
of  God ;  but  possessing  mesvsages  like  these,  it  would 
not  be  modesty,  it  would  be  cowardly  treason  to  the 
affluence  of  Christ's  evangel,  if  I  said  that,  having 
received  much  from  science,  I  had  not,  as  a  herald 
of  religion,  far,  far  more  to  give. 

Much  has  yet  to  be  done  in  the  patient  pursuit 
of  knowledge,  in  the  sharp  conflict  of  argument, 
and  in  the  experience  of  discipline,  before  science 
and  religion  understand  one  another.  In  particular, 
the  scientific  temper  (as  Father  Waggett  calls  it) 
is  needed  in  religion,  as  the  religious  temper  is  in 


RELIGIONIST  AND  SCIENTIST       17 

science.  But  the  tempers  are  not  really  two,  but 
one.  In  both  spheres,  men  need  patience,  fidelity 
to  their  ignorance,  freedom  from  pride  and  pre- 
judice, sacrificial  love  of  truth,  the  spirit  of  adven- 
ture, and  the  spirit  of  reverence. 

That  temper  the  Holy  Spirit  is  diffusing  widely 
to-day  before  our  very  eyes :  it  is  only  discredited 
pseudo-science  that  is  arrogant  and  blasphemous,  as 
it  is  pseudo-religion  that  is  proud,  obscurantist,  and 
narrow.  And  the  diifusion  of  that  Christian 
temper  alike  over  both  these  great  spheres  of 
inquiry  I  take  to  be  a  significant  and  hopeful  omen 
of  the  coming  of  the  time  when  (to  adapt  the 
memorable  words  of  Cardinal  Newman)  ''  the  whole 
mind  of  the  world  will  be  absorbed  into  the  Philo- 
sophy of  the  Cross,  as  the  element  in  which  it  lives, 
and  the  form  upon  which  it  is  moulded." 


SCIENCE   AND    RELIGION,  by  the   Rev.  FATHER 
W.  J.  CROFTON,  S.J.,  M.A.,  Glasgow. 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION 

It  would  appear  that  nowadays  the  words  Science 
and  Religion  cannot  be  used  in  juxtaposition  with- 
out suggesting  the  idea  of  conflict  and  strife.  A 
powerful  and  popular  press  has  disseminated 
throughout  Europe  the  notion  that  the  two  are 
armed  for  deadly  fight,  that  they  are  engaged  in  a 
duel  from  which  neither  can  emerge  save  by 
passing  over  the  prostrate  form  of  the  other.  It 
has  become  a  sort  of  axiom  with  certain  people 
that  no  one  can  be  a  scientific  man — physicist,  or 
geologist,  or  biologist,  or  even  historian  —  and 
accept  in  whole  or  in  part  the  time-honoured 
beliefs  of  Christianity.  I  know  full  well  that 
such  a  misapprehension  is  not  shared  by  the 
greatest  leaders  of  thought  in  modern  days,  by 
the  giants  of  intellectual  research,  by  those  who 
have  left  their  mark  for  all  time  on  the  branch  of 
knowledge  to  which  they  have  devoted  their  life. 
We  who  advocate  that  there  is  no  real  opposition 
between  science  and  religion  need  feel  no  sense 
of  shame,  or  look  upon  ourselves  as  reactionaries 
and  obscurantists,  when  we  find  ourselves  in  the 
goodly  company  of  the  late  venerated  Chancellor  of 


22  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

this  University,  of  Stokes  and  Clerk-Maxwell,  or 
Cauchy  and  Pasteur.  Still,  we  may  perhaps  for 
the  sake  of  argument  allow  that  the  ordinary  man 
of  science,  what  has  been  called  the  "average 
Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society,"  is  one  who  views 
religion  with  suspicion,  if  not  with  contempt  and 
aversion.  It  is  true  that  the  "  average "  Privy 
Councillor,  or  Member  of  Parliament,  or  Royal 
Academician,  may  not  be  better  affected  to  what 
concerns  the  supra-sensible  world;  but  at  any 
rate  it  is  not  through  his  duties  and  pursuits  that 
he  is  brought  into  collision  with  the  data  of  faith. 
What  gives  an  added  importance  to  the  anti- 
religious  statements  of  many  whom  the  world  at 
large  regards  as  the  exponents  of  recent  science, 
is  precisely  that  they  proceed  from  men  who  are 
experts,  and  who  may  be  expected  to  pronounce 
with  some  authority  on  questions  which  they  have 
made  their  own.  And  when  they  assure  the 
public  that  the  dogmas  of  faith,  the  facts  of  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  revelation,  are  hopelessly  at 
variance  with  the  ascertained  laws  of  nature, 
their  statements  obtain  a  degree  of  credence 
which  would  not  attach  to  the  opinions  of  others 
less  eminently  qualified.  We  cannot  therefore 
afford  to  neglect  the  arguments  which  they 
adduce,  or  affect  a  lofty  indifference,  a  proud 
aloofness  in  presence  of  the  attacks  made  by  them 
on  the  religious  position :  if  we  do  not  bestir  our- 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION  23 

selves  to  maintain  our  ground  and  strengthen  our 
defences,  we  shall  find  whole  multitudes  of 
educated  men  and  women  deserting  our  common 
Christianity  and  flocking  into  the  camp  of 
Agnosticism.  It  is,  I  take  it,  with  a  view  to 
check  so  appalling  a  contingency  that  this 
Society  of  St  Ninian  has  been  founded,  and  it 
is  to  be  hoped  that  the  lectures  and  discussions 
which  will  take  place  under  its  auspices  may 
have  the  effect  of  supporting  and  confirming 
the  religious  beliefs  of  many  who  attend  the 
meetings. 

Now,  amongst  those  who  are  anxious  to  take  a 
part  in  the  general  defence  of  religion,  there  has 
recently  arisen  a  school  which,  under  the  name  of 
the  New  Theology  in  English-speaking  countries, 
and  of  Modernism  on  the  Continent,  has  attained 
a  degree  of  notoriety  with  which  we  are  all 
familiar.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  deal  with  the 
large  issues  that  have  been  raised  by  the  upholders 
of  the  system :  the  time  at  my  disposal,  no  less 
than  the  nature  of  my  task,  prohibit  any  such 
undertaking.  I  only  wish  to  draw  your  attention 
to  a  method  of  apologetics  which  has  been  adopted 
by  some  of  the  most  prominent  members  of  the 
school.  They  aver  that  the  advance  of  knowledge 
in  modern  times  has  proved  fatal  to  religion  as  it 
was  formerly  understood.  Science  and  criticism 
have  battered  down  the  walls  behind  which  it  was 


24  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

hitherto  supposed  to  stand  impregnable.  The  old 
arguments  that  filled  its  armoury  haye  lost  their 
edge,  and  are  about  as  untrustworthy  and  in- 
effective as  the  bows  and  arrows  of  savages,  or 
the  pikes  of  our  forefathers,  would  be  when  pitted 
against  modern  weapons  of  precision.  And  yet, 
they  say,  religion  is  not  afFected  by  the  destruction 
of  all  that  has  heretofore  been  her  stay  and  support. 
She  emerges  transfigured,  sublimated,  raised  into 
a  higher,  more  ideal,  more  ethereal  sphere.  We 
had  grown  accustomed  to  the  notion  of  a  conflict 
between  herself  and  human  science.  We  may  now 
dismiss  all  such  fear,  for  the  reason  that  a  conflict 
is  a  matter  of  impossibility.  Science  and  religion 
have  nothing  in  common,  they  dwell  apart  in 
separate  realms ;  they  move  along  parallel  planes, 
which  can  never  meet,  however  far  they  are  pro- 
duced ;  and  accordingly  all  fear  of  a  collision  is 
precluded.  There  can  be  no  more  opposition 
between  the  experimental  order,  which  is  the 
domain  of  science,  and  the  transcendental,  which 
belongs  to  religion,  than  there  can  be  between 
gravitation  and  patriotism,  or  between  the  colours 
of  the  rainbow  and  a  general  election.  And  if  it 
has  hitherto  been  considered  that  there  lies  a 
debatable  ground  between  the  two,  its  very 
existence  is  denied  by  the  advocates  of  the  new 
apologetic. 

Revelation  in  particular,  according  to  them,  is 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION  25 

nothing  external  or  objective  ;  its  substance  is  not 
contained  in  the  pages  of  a  book  or  in  the 
traditions  of  a  Church ;  the  Bible  is  but  a  record  of 
the  religious  "  experiences  "  of  former  generations, 
which  may  or  may  not  agree  with  our  own. 
Revelation  is  essentially  subjective,  inward,  removed 
from  the  senses ;  it  consists  in  the  keen  conscious- 
ness of  right  and  wrong,  in  the  inner  prompting  to 
do  what  is  just,  upright,  honourable,  than  which 
nothing  can  be  more  unmistakably  the  voice  of 
God  speaking  within  us.  So  too,  the  formulas  by 
means  of  which  Councils  and  Assemblies  have  ex- 
pressed the  dogmas  of  their  belief  have  no 
scientific  value;  the  sense  in  which  they  were 
understood  by  their  framers  may  have  been  very 
different  from  that  in  which  they  are  received  now, 
or  will  be  received  in  the  future.  They  do  not 
establish  a  landmark,  they  do  not  constitute  a  test ; 
they  are  a  fluctuating,  shifting  quantity,  which  may 
be  readily  adapted  and  altered  so  as  to  suit  the 
peculiar  character  and  meet  the  progressive  demands 
of  each  age,  and  may  vary  in  accordance  with  the 
experiences  and  idiosyncrasies  of  each  individual. 

It  is  seen  at  once  that  in  such  a  system  there  is 
no  room  for  any  of  the  alleged  opposition  between 
science  and  religion  which  is  occupying  us  to-day. 
So  long  as  rivals  are  imprisoned  in  different  cells 
there  is  little  fear  that  they  will  come  to  blows. 
The    question,    however,    remains,    whether    the 


26  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

advocates  of  the  new  ideas  have  not  induced  a 
state  of  affairs  far  more  dangerous  to  the 
theological  position  than  was  involved  in  the 
assertion  of  irreconcilable  enmity,  if  indeed  they 
have  not  dealt  the  death-stroke  to  the  cause  they 
profess  to  uphold.  They  evade  our  present 
difficulty,  no  doubt ;  but  in  doing  so  they  surrender 
everything  that  makes  religion  a  reality  and  an 
impelling  force.  They  throw  away  to  the  wolves 
its  revealed  character;  they  strip  it  of  its  objectivity  ; 
they  deny  its  intelligibility  in  mental  concepts  ;  they 
refuse  it  even  the  power  of  expression  in  human 
language :  it  appeals,  not  to  the  reason  of  man, 
but  to  his  feelings,  to  his  emotions,  to  his  ethical 
and  sesthetical  nature.  Faith,  instead  of  being  an 
act  of  the  intellect,  the  straightforward  acceptance 
of  an  external  revelation,  becomes  a  sentiment,  a 
taste,  a  pleasurable  sensation,  an  inward  consola- 
tion. Now,  I  venture  to  affirm  that  such  a  system 
will  never  satisfy  that  fabulous  personage  who  has 
been  called  the  man  in  the  street :  it  is  too  re- 
condite, too  artificial ;  the  over-refinement  is  too 
apparent,  I  may  say  it  is  too  contrary  to  the  sturdy 
common-sense  of  mankind.  But,  least  of  all  will 
it  satisfy  the  man  of  science,  whom  it  was  sought 
to  placate.  His  inexorable  logic  will  pursue  it  even 
into  the  sphere  wherein  it  endeavours  to  isolate 
religion.  Beliefs  which  are  represented  as  simply 
non-rational  will  soon  be  sifted,  and  analysed,  and 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION  27 

pronounced  to  be  irrational^  contrary  to  reason, 
because  they  cannot  stand  the  test  of  reason,  our 
ultimate  arbiter  of  truth  and  untruth.  It  may  then 
be  confidently  said  that  a  public  service  has  been 
rendered  by  Pope  Pius  X.,  when  in  a  recent 
Encyclical  he  has  raised  his  voice  in  solemn  tones 
to  denounce  urbi  et  orbi  the  aberrations  of  those 
who  would  thus  reduce  religion  to  a  mere  airy 
nothing,  an  unsubstantial  fabric  woven  of  personal 
dreams  and  fancies,  and  resting  on  no  more  solid 
basis  than  a  subjective  empiricism  and  individualism. 
Nothing,  then,  is  gained  by  shirking,  or  running 
away  from,  the  difficulty  that  confronts  us  when 
we  are  told  of  the  opposition  of  modern  science  to 
rehgion.  At  the  same  time,  it  would  be  foolish 
to  allow  ourselves  to  be  unduly  frightened,  and  to 
magnify  the  difficulty  until  it  is  made  an  insur- 
mountable obstacle  to  faith.  In  fact,  the  opposi- 
tion of  which  so  much  is  made  nowadays  is  an 
apparent  opposition,  not  a  real  one.  It  cannot  be 
real,  on  a  priori  grounds,  for  the  reason  that  truth 
is  one,  and  cannot  be  conceived  as  self-contra- 
dictory. It  imposes  therefore  upon  us  the 
necessity  of  revising  our  methods  and  reasonings, 
whenever  seemingly  discordant  results  are  obtained 
by  independent  processes.  There  are  many,  it  is 
true,  hostile  to  religion,  who  maintain  that  physical 
science  needs  no  inquiry  into  the  legitimacy  of  its 
conclusions,  and   that  it   is  theology  which   must 


28  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

ever  bow  and  retire  whenever  a  difficulty  arises. 
But  such  a  view  involves  a  petitio  principii ;  it 
assumes  that  physical  science  exercises  a  monopoly 
in  the  world  of  knowledge,  that  there  is  no 
certitude  save  such  as  comes  within  its  scope  and 
purview.  Whereas  our  contention  is  that  Faith 
contributes  a  positive  element  to  our  knowledge 
of  the  universe  as  a  whole,  that  theology  is  as 
truly  a  science  as  biology,  and  that  it  can  deduce 
consequences  from  the  facts  of  Revelation  as  validly 
as  Euclid  derives  his  propositions  from  certain 
fundamental  axioms  and  postulates.  "  Let  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  be  true,"  says  Newman, 
^Ms  it  not  at  once  of  the  nature  of  an  historical  fact 
and  of  a  metaphysical.'*  Let  it  be  true  there 
are  Angels :  how  is  this  not  a  point  of  knowledge 
in  the  same  sense  as  the  naturalist's  asseveration 
that  there  are  myriads  of  living  things  on  the 
point  of  a  needle?  That  the  earth  is  to  be 
consumed  by  fire  is,  if  true,  as  large  a  fact  as  that 
huge  monsters  once  played  amidst  its  depths  ;  and 
that  Antichrist  is  to  come  is  as  categorical  a 
heading  to  a  chapter  of  history  as  that  Nero  or 
Julian  was  Emperor  of  Rome "  (Univ.  Educ.^ 
p.  46).  Like  every  other  science,  then,  religion 
and  theology  repose  upon  certain  first  principles 
and  fundamental  facts.  These  principles  and  facts 
are  not  arbitrary,  they  are  not  laid  down  without 
warrant.      They   are    established    by    the    same 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION  29 

historical,  critical,  and  philosophical  proofs  which 
we  use  in  ascertaining  the  events  of  the  past,  or 
in  studying  the  nature  and  the  functions  of  the 
human  soul.  And  if  they  lead  back,  as  they  often 
do,  to  deeper  principles  yet,  to  what  are  called 
mysteries,  surely  it  is  not  for  physical  science 
to  throw  a  stone  at  theology  on  that  account, 
seeing  how  baffling  are  the  notions  that  form  the 
very  starting-point  of  its  own  researches.  When 
an  explanation  has  been  given  of  the  nature  of 
matter,  of  force,  of  energy,  when  no  further 
dimness  attaches  to  our  idea  of  an  all-pervading 
ether,  of  elemental  affinities,  of  a  self-actuating 
vital  principle,  it  will  be  time  to  reproach  Chris- 
tianity with  the  fact  that  it  sets  out  from  such 
incomprehensible  doctrines  as  the  existence  of  a 
God  distinct  from  the  world,  or  a  Trinity  of 
Persons,  or  a  Hypostatic  Union  of  Natures. 

If,  then,  it  be  granted  that  religion  is  not  a  mere 
emotional  phase  of  our  consciousness,  but  that 
it  conveys  to  us  definite  knowledge,  and  adds  to 
our  stock  of  ascertained  truth,  then  every  opposi- 
tion between  its  conclusions  and  the  results  of 
other  branches  of  inquiry  must  be  treated  in  the 
same  way  as  the  divergences  of  other  sciences 
inter  se.  For — as  is  important  to  note,  and  is 
often  overlooked — it  is  not  between  science  and 
religion  alone  that  there  is  to  be  found  an 
apparent   clash   and    disagreement.     The    conflict 


30  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

exists  wherever  we  have  to  co-ordinate  resuhs 
which  have  been  obtained  by  independent  methods 
and  different  lines  of  approach.  Geology  and 
Astronomy  have  been  engaged  in  an  almost  secular 
strife  concerning  the  age  of  the  earth  ;  the  Higher 
Criticism,  as  it  is  called,  and  Archaeology  have  on 
many  points  arrived  at  conclusions  quite  opposed 
to  each  other.  History  is  not  always  in  accord 
with  many  current  theories  of  Political  Economy 
or  Sociology.  But  we  do  not  thereupon  throw 
overboard  the  science  which  happens  to  con- 
tradict our  favoured  view.  We  exercise  patience ; 
we  wait  for  fuller  information,  for  more  searching 
experiments ;  we  revise  our  reasonings ;  we  test 
the  soundness  of  our  original  principles;  and 
meanwhile  we  suspend  our  judgment,  in  the  entire 
persuasion  that  a  reconciliation  will  be  effected  in 
time,  and  the  truth  made  manifest :  Magna  est 
Veritas^  et  prcevalebit.  Such  too  should  be  our 
attitude  in  presence  of  any  difference  which  may 
arise  between  science  and  religion.  We  have  in 
the  first  instance  to  determine  whether  the  conflict 
is  not  due — as  often  happens — to  the  overstepping 
of  one  of  the  parties  into  the  domain  of  the  other, 
a  process  which  obviously  can  only  lead  to  con- 
fusion and  misunderstanding.  The  Galileo  case 
affords  a  curious  double  example  of  the  evil  of 
such  interference,  for  if  a  congregation  of  Cardinals 
was  not  the  proper  tribunal  to  pass  judgment  on 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION  31 

the  Copernican  system,  neither  was  Galileo  keeping 
to  his  role  of  physicist  when  he  undertook  to  in- 
terpret Scripture  to  the  public.  We  have  again, 
and  more  frequently  still,  to  investigate  whether 
the  so-called  conflict  has  not  originated  in  the 
mistaking  of  scientific  "  theories "  for  well- 
established  certainties.  Modern  science,  if  it 
makes  profession  of  anything,  asserts  that  it  deals 
with  facts  only,  that  it  will  accept  nothing  on 
faith,  that  every  conclusion  it  arrives  at  must  be 
based  on  flawless  experiments  and  a  rigorous 
method  of  proof.  It  follows  that  a  theory  or 
working  hypothesis  may  be  useful  for  purposes 
of  research,  but  it  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  science. 
The  laws  of  optics,  the  laws  that  govern  falling 
bodies  or  regulate  chemical  combinations,  truly 
belong  to  science,  for  we  have  exact  proof, 
qualitative  and  quantitative,  of  their  existence, 
and  in  the  present  order  of  things  we  cannot 
conceive  them  to  be  superseded.  I  might  have 
included  the  Conservation  of  Energy,  were  it  not 
for  the  flutter  excited  by  the  discovery  of  radium 
a  few  years  ago  as  to  the  safety  even  of  that  great 
principle.  Now  I  would  remark  that  the  most 
bitter  antagonist  of  the  religious  view  will  hardly 
venture  to  say  that  Christianity  and  its  dogmas 
are  placed  in  serious  jeopardy  by  these  or  other 
similar  undoubted  laws  of  the  physical  order.  On 
the    other    hand,    the    Undulatory   Theory,    the 


32  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Nebular  Theory,  the  Atomic  Theory,  Natural 
Selection,  are  avowedly  working  hypotheses,  some 
more,  some  less  solidly  established ;  "  theories," 
as  their  name  indicates,  which  none  of  their 
authors  and  active  promoters  have  ever  considered 
final  and  irreversible,  and  which  a  few  awkward 
facts  would  relegate  to  the  scrap-heap  where  lie 
so  many  theories,  popular  enough  in  their  day, 
since  exploded  and  forgotten.  Now,  if  we  free 
our  minds  for  a  moment  from  all  details,  and 
consider  the  question  before  us  in  its  broadest 
aspect,  I  think  we  shall  own  that  the  strife 
between  science  and  religion  of  which  we  hear 
so  much  is  almost  entirely  confined  to  the  field 
occupied  by  some  of  the  theories  I  have  mentioned, 
and  others  which  might  be  added.  The  opposition 
then  is  not  between  dogmas  and  scientific  facts,  but 
between  dogmas  and  certain  hypotheses  which  have 
been  put  forward  to  correlate  those  facts ;  and  until 
these  hypotheses  have  been  demonstrated  to  be 
realities,  there  can  be  no  question  of  any  real 
dissension,  and  no  call  upon  the  Church  to  re- 
adjust her  formularies.  It  would  take  me  too 
long  to  develop  the  subject,  and  to  illustrate  it 
by  examples  taken  from  the  various  sciences : 
non  omnia  possumus  omnes.  I  would  only  remark 
that  it  is  not  merely  in  the  realm  of  physical  and 
natural  knowledge  that  scientific  men  are  apt  to 
formulate  theories,  and  by  dint  of  dwelling  upon 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION  ^2> 

them  come  to  consider  them  as  uncontrovertible 
verities,  but  the  tendency  is  to  be  found  even 
amongst  mathematicians,  who  can  sometimes  lose 
themselves  in  unreal  abstractions,  and  speculate  on 
the  properties  of  a  fourth  dimension,  or  discuss 
the  curvature  of  our  three-dimensional  space ! 

The  moral  I  would  point  as  flowing  from  these 
few  considerations  is  that  we  must  have  patience 
one  with  another.  Instead  of  publishing  from  the 
housetops  that  there  can  be  no  peace  between 
religion  and  science,  our  object  should  be  to 
harmonise  what  seems  discordant,  to  reconcile  the 
varying  results  of  honest  inquirers  in  different 
fields,  to  cultivate  a  spirit  of  good-will  towards 
every  branch  of  knowledge,  secular  or  theological, 
which  promotes  the  physical,  social,  and  moral 
welfare  of  mankind.  Cunctae  res  difficiles.  What 
we  ignore  is  far  more  extensive  than  what  we 
know.  "Science  has  done  much  for  us,"  says 
Carlyle.  "  But  it  is  a  poor  science  that  would 
hide  from  us  the  great,  deep,  sacred  infinitude  of 
Nescience,  whither  we  can  never  penetrate,  on 
which  all  Science  swims  as  a  mere  superficial  film  " 
(Heroes  i.).  This  wholesome,  though  perhaps 
humiliating  consciousness  of  our  ignorance  may 
tend  to  make  us  more  distrustful  of  our  own 
reasonings  and  more  tolerant  of  the  opinions  of 
others;  when  a  contradiction  seems  manifest,  it 
may  induce  us  to  reserve  our  judgment,  and  to 
C 


34  ST  N  INI  AN  LECTURES 

seek  to  deepen  our  studies  in  the  hopes  of  reach- 
ing a  more  secure  foothold.  You  will  remember 
how  Laplace  once  calculated  that,  given  certain 
initial  conditions  of  distance  and  velocity,  the  moon 
would  always  have  been  full  and  reigned  over  the 
night  as  the  sun  does  over  the  day.  Certain 
e sprits  forts  took  occasion  immediately  to  impugn 
the  evidences  of  a  beneficent  and  intelligent 
Deity.  The  coup  de  grdce^  however,  was  given 
by  Liouville,  who  showed  that,  though  the  theory 
was  correct,  the  equilibrium  was  unstable — per- 
haps a  remarkable  illustration  of  Bacon's  dictum 
that  a  little  knowledge  may  take  us  away  from 
God,  but  that  further  knowledge  will  bring  us 
back  to  Him. 

We  may  be  further  helped  to  this  spirit  of 
mutual  toleration  and  goodwill  by  yet  another 
consideration,  and  it  will  be  my  last.  Religion  is 
not  merely  on  her  defence,  as  is  often  impHed  in 
the  attacks  that  are  made  upon  her.  She  has 
arguments  to  bring  forward  in  her  own  behalf, 
which  cannot  be  spurned  and  set  aside  as  things 
of  no  weight  or  value.  From  the  nature  of 
the  case  those  arguments  are  not  and  cannot 
be  of  a  physical  nature ;  they  are  metaphysical, 
they  are  moral,  and  the  certitude  they  generate 
is  on  the  lowest  computation  of  the  moral  order. 
We  must,  however,  be  on  our  guard  against 
thinking  that  moral  certitude  is  necessarily  weak 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION  35 

and  unavailing  when  confronted  with  physical  con- 
siderations.    Moral  proofs,  when  properly  drawn 
out,  may  have  as  much  effect  in  determining  the 
assent   of   the   understanding   as   any   geometrical 
theorem.     We  are  as  certain  of  the  existence  of 
Caesar  as  we  are  of  the  principle  of  Archimedes. 
That  Christianity  should  be  based  on  authority, 
the   authority  of  a  book,  or  the  authority  of  a 
teaching  Church,  is  therefore  no  antecedent  pre- 
judice to  its  truth,  if  only  that  authority  is  invested 
with   the   necessary   guarantees.      History  is   not 
slow  to  assert  its  rights,  and  yet  it  depends  essen- 
tially upon  authority,  upon  the  testimony  of  men 
and    of   human    documents.       And    science    itself 
relies   on  authority   far  more    than   is    commonly 
understood.      Theoretically  we  could  repeat  the 
experiments  contained  in  our  text-books,  but  life 
is  too  short,  the  means  and  appliances  are  too  few 
and  too  costly.     The  researches  and  discoveries  of 
others  are  for  the  most  part  taken  for  granted ;  in 
practice  we  are  content  to  abide  by  the  testimony 
of  men  whom  we  consider  to  be  expert  and  trust- 
worthy.    If,  then,  religion  comes  to  us  with  due 
credentials  in  her  hand,  I   contend  that   it  is  as 
much  the  duty  of  science  to  reckon  with  these, 
and  in   their  light  to  modify  or  recast  certain  of 
its  conclusions,   as   it    may  be   the    duty    of   the 
mathematician    to   reconsider  his   formulae,   if  he 
finds  them  contradicted  by  experiment,  or  of  the 


S6  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

theologian  himself  to  interpret  the  data  of  revela- 
tion in  a  sense  conform  to  the  established  facts  of 
physics  or  biology. 

Whenever  the  two  sides  agree  to  view  the 
matters,  on  which  there  may  be  some  difference  of 
opinion,  coolly  and  dispassionately,  in  a  spirit  of 
fairness  and  sweet  reasonableness,  desirous  only 
that  the  truth  may  appear,  not  that  they  them- 
themselves  may  obtain  the  upper  hand,  the  day 
will  not  be  far  distant  when  they  succeed  in  adjust- 
ing their  differences,  and  are  enabled  to  join  hands 
in  a  common  effort  to  improve  the  material  and 
spiritual  condition  of  mankind. 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY  AND  THE  CLAIMS 
OF  REVELATION,  by  JOHN  M.  ROBERTSON, 
Esq.,  M.P.,  London. 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY  AND  THE 
CLAIMS  OF  REVELATION 

It  is  an  old  observation  that  contact  with  one  or 
more  aHen  religions  is  apt  to  set  up  in  the  votaries 
of  any  one  system  either  variation  of  belief,  or  a 
general  tendency  to  religious  scepticism.  Such  a 
tendency  seems  to  be  implicitly  acknowledged  in 
the  many  allusions  of  the  Hebrew  prophetic  and 
priestly  writers  to  the  influence  of  surrounding 
cults  on  their  compatriots ;  and  it  was  within  the 
sphere  of  the  old  empires  which  amalgamated  or 
juxtaposed  many  creeds  and  deities  that  there  seem 
to  have  risen  the  first  movements  of  dissolvent 
pantheism.  Among  the  Greeks  analogous  de- 
velopments are  first  seen  in  Ionia,  where  Eastern 
and  Western  cultures  met;  and  at  a  later  stage  they 
went  far  in  Athens,  the  most  cosmopolitan  of  com- 
munities in  the  Classic  period.  Later,  we  trace 
them  among  the  early  Moslems  in  Persia ;  among 
the  Christian  Crusaders ;  even,  contrary  to  common 
assumption,  among  the  Christian  Spaniards  in  the 
period  of  their  warfare  with  the  Moors,  which  was 
much  more  racial  and  much  less  religious  than  is 
generally  supposed.     But  even  definitely  religious 

39 


40  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

wars,  and  religious  strifes  which  fall  short  of  war, 
have  the  same  tendency  to  generate  religious  diffi- 
dence in  those  who  witness  them.  It  was  the 
French  President  Jeannin  who,  after  seeing  much 
of  the  wars  of  the  Catholics  and  the  Huguenots  in 
France,  remarked  that  a  peace  with  two  religions 
was  better  than  a  war  with  none ;  and  the  view 
became  common,  though  it  was  not  found  that  the 
restoration  of  peace  stayed  the  process  of  scepti- 
cism. Ascham,  Hooker,  Bacon,  and  Bishop 
Fotherby  testify  decisively  that  in  the  reigns  of 
Elizabeth  and  James  there  had  arisen  a  great 
amount  of  unbelief  in  regard  to  both  the  dogmas 
and  the  sacred  books  of  the  Christian  faith ;  and 
the  causes  indicated  or  inferrible  are  on  the  one 
hand  the  contact  of  English  travellers  with  the  life 
of  Italy,  and  on  the  other  the  strifes  of  Protestant 
and  Catholic,  Puritan  and  Prelatist,  at  home.  It 
was  in  1624,  when  the  Continental  and  the  English 
tendencies  had  in  part  coalesced,  that  Lord  Herbert 
of  Cherbury,  the  literary  founder  of  English  Deism, 
published  his  De  Veritate^  which  rejects  the 
theorem  of  Revelation  on  grounds  of  comparative 
hierology,  a  study  to  which  he  made  a  further 
scholarly  contribution  in  his  De  religione  gentilium 
in  1663.  In  the  same  generation  in  France,  La 
Bruyere  specifies  acquaintance  with  the  religions 
of  the  heathen  as  a  source  of  freethinking  in  his 
day  ;  and  an  English  work  of  1 705  on  the  analogies 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY         41 

of  East  Indian  with  Jewish  customs  pronounces  the 
same  judgment. 

Now  that  the  more  or  less  systematic  study  of 
comparative  hierology  is  a  recognised  part  of 
theological  training,  it  would  be  surprising  if 
contemporary  Rationalism  did  not  exhibit  syste- 
matically the  same  order  of  intellectual  progression  ; 
and,  this  being  the  case,  it  is  inevitable  that  the 
theology  of  our  time  should  directly  deal  with 
the  problem.  I  propose  to  put  it  to  the  test  of 
philosophic  reason,  as  dispassionately  and  scientifi- 
cally as  may  be.  Hebrew  and  Christian  archaeology 
is  more  and  more  clearly  dependent  upon  the  com- 
parative study  of  religion  for  the  scientific  compre- 
hension of  its  subject-matter;  and  some  of  the 
most  suggestive  of  recent  works  on  religious 
evolution  are  put  forth  by  scholars  who  profess 
to  see  no  reason  in  their  subject-matter  for 
abandoning  the  concept  of  revelation  and  the 
beliefs  resulting  from  it.  I  may  instance  Professor 
F.  B.  Jevons,  whose  Introduction  to  the  History 
of  Religion  repays  study  from  any  point  of 
view.  Mr  Andrew  Lang,  in  his  later  works, 
occupies  a  position  at  least  nearer  to  that  of  Mr 
Jevons  than  to  that  of  Naturalism;  and  the  Rev. 
Mr  Macculloch  may  be  cited  as  a  student  who  sees 
no  incompatibility  between  the  data  of  comparative 
hierology  and  what  may  be  termed  liberal  orthodoxy. 

Without  going  into  any  detailed  discussion  of 


42  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

the  writings  of  these  scholars,  and  without  Hmiting 
the  possible  positions  of  critical  theology  to  any 
of  their  special  theses,  I  will  endeavour  to  generalise 
the  implications  of  their  argument  into  what  seem 
to  me  to  be  the  central  propositions  which  may 
be  alternatively  contended  for  by  a  modern  defender 
of  the  idea  of  Revelation. 

(i)  It  may  be  argued,  on  the  Hues  of  the  great 
work  of  Dr  John  Spencer,  De  legibus  Hebraorum^ 
published  in  1685  (perhaps  on  the  stimulus  of 
Herbert),  that  the  supernatural  provision  of 
Hebrew  rites  analogous  to  those  of  the  surrounding 
peoples  was  part  of  the  scheme  of  Revelation  taken 
for  granted  in  historic  Christianity. 

(2)  It  may  be  argued  that  Christian  revelation 
consisted  in  the  infusion  of  new  ideas  and  ideals 
into  a  cult  naturally  evolved  out  of  the  primitive 
complex  of  religious  thought  traced  by  Professor 
Jevons  and  others. 

(3.)  It  may  be  further  argued,  in  development 
of  the  last  position,  that  Revelation  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  in  some  sense  involved  in  the  whole  of 
the  prior  evolution,  even  in  the  primeval  form 
of  the  cannibal  sacrament,  which  is  accepted 
by  Mr  Jevons  as  a  rite  on  the  true  line  of 
religion. 

(4.)  It  may  be  yet  further  argued  that  Revelation 
is  to  be  understood  as  involved  in  some  sense  in  all 
the  religions  of  the  world,  and  that  either  all  are 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY         43 

to  be  viewed  as  true  for  those  who  accepted  or  still 
accept  them  —  which  would  seem  to  be  the 
upshot  of  the  thesis  of  Lessing  on  "The  Education 
of  the  Human  Race" — or  the  Christian  revelation 
is  internally  certificated  to  be  the  culminating 
one  by  its  ethical  and  its  dogmatic  adaptations  to 
human  needs. 

(5.)  Or,  finally,  it  may  be  argued  on  the  lines  of 
the  older  orthodoxy,  that  all  analogies  to  Hebrew 
and  Christian  religion  in  other  faiths  and  cults  are 
to  be  explained  as  imperfect  developments  from 
primeval  Adamic  religion,  to  which  only  Revelation, 
Hebrew  and  Christian,  could  give  their  proper 
form  and  significance. 

If  I  have  omitted  any  currently  held  position 
relevant  to  our  problem,  it  is  certainly  not  from 
any  wish  to  ignore  it.  I  have  formulated  those 
which  seem  to  me  the  least,  as  well  as  those  the 
most,  likely  to  be  maintained  by  instructed  theo- 
logians. It  is  not  for  me,  however,  to  make  any 
assumptions  as  to  which  would  most  readily  be 
ehminated  or  accepted  by  my  audience ;  and  I 
shall  briefly  outline  my  own  process  of  elimination, 
beginning  with  the  position  last  put. 

The  belief  in  a  diffused  primeval  knowledge, 
limited  but  true,  of  a  deity  who  had  made  himself 
known  to  men,  but  from  whom  men  progressively 
went  astray,  was  once  an  integral  part  of  orthodox 
theology ;   and  if  it  is   surrendered  by  theology, 


44  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

something  presumably  must  be  put  in  its  place. 
But  in  the  form  stated  it  appears  to  be  entirely- 
dependent  on  the  literal  retention  of  the  Genesaic 
account  of  the  creation  and  fall  of  man ;  and  I  am 
fain  to  limit  the  field  of  the  present  discussion  by 
setting  aside  that  credence  as  one  the  examination 
of  which  would  leave  no  time  whatever  for  our 
special  problem.  For  the  sake  of  the  argument, 
I  will  suppose  that  those  who  here  and  now 
stand  for  the  concept  of  Revelation  will  treat 
that  narrative  either  as  a  didactic  allegory  super- 
naturally  designed  for  a  primitive  people,  or  as  an 
element  of  Semitic  folklore  preserved  in  a  cult 
which  the  factor  of  Revelation  elevated  or  trans- 
formed. On  either  view  we  are  led  to  the 
defensive  conception  first  sketched  — that  of  Revela- 
tion as  beginning  in  a  planned  adaptation  of  existing 
rites  for  the  early  Hebrews. 

If,  however,  that  position  is  taken  up  with 
a  definite  inclusion  of  the  Darwinian  view  of  the 
evolution  of  human  life,  the  theologian  is  face 
to  face  with  the  old  demand  that  he  should  justify 
the  notion  of  a  deity  who  for  an  enormous  period 
of  time  leaves  primitive  man  to  grope  in  darkness, 
and  at  length  furnishes  only  a  temporary  revela- 
tion to  one  race,  which  is  enjoined  to  remain 
rigorously  apart  from  and  hostile  to  all  others.  I 
will  dogmatically  avow,  in  order  to  economise  time, 
that   I  cannot  conceive  how  such  a  notion  could 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY         45 

for  a  moment  appeal  to  any  one  who  had  not  been 
first  and  foremost  quite  uncritically  possessed  by 
the  concrete  dogma,  whether  as  a  member  of  the 
people  alleged  to  have  been  thus  chosen,  or  as  one 
trained  from  the  beginning  in  the  unquestioning 
acceptance  of  the  Bible  as  the  revelation.  In  the 
latter  case,  it  suffices  to  say  that  he  who  affirms 
Revelation  on  the  score  of  mere  authority  is  in  effect 
affirming  it  on  his  own.  He  alone  vouches  to  me 
the  actuality  of  the  authority  he  alleges  to  be 
sacrosanct.  If  he  propounds  reasons  drawn  from 
the  content  of  the  alleged  revelation  as  apart  from 
its  claims  to  be  revelation,  he  has  abandoned  the 
ground  of  mere  authority.  And,  seeing  that 
other  faiths  claim  as  confidently  as  the  Hebrew 
to  be  supernaturally  revealed,  he  must  either 
accord  the  claim  in  some  sense  to  all  or  proceed 
to  give  reasons  for  granting  it  in  the  one  case  only. 
I  am  bound  to  suppose  that  some  of  my  audience 
claim  to  be  able  to  give  such  reasons ;  and  I  will 
somewhat  summarily  reduce  them,  so  far  as  I 
know  them,  to  the  classes  of  arguments  from 
miracles,  arguments  from  history,  and  arguments 
from  ethical  content  or  result.  The  first  are  met 
by  the  answer  that  the  other  creeds  also  affirm 
miracles,  and  that  instructed  people  in  ever  larger 
numbers  are  agreeing  to  treat  all  as  either 
incredible  or  unverifiable.  And  prophecy,  in  the 
sense   of  prediction,   being   miracle,   that   element 


46  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

in  the  old  argument  from  Jewish  history  dis- 
appears, leaving  only  the  fact  of  Jewish  separate- 
ness,  which  is  a  phenomenon  on  all  fours  with 
the  separateness  of  the  Parsees.  As  to  ethical 
content,  finally — and  in  this  we  may  include  the 
argument  from  the  character  of  Jewish  conduct — 
I  answer  that  an  ethic  at  many  points  higher  than 
that  of  the  Pentateuch  or  even  of  the  prophets  is  to 
be  found  evolved  on  a  line  of  culture  which,  in  the 
terms  of  the  Hebrew  claim,  is  outside  of  Revela- 
tion. It  may  suffice  to  recall  that  Mr  Gladstone 
put  the  ethic  of  the  Homeric  Achasans  above  that 
of  the  Hebrew  Patriarchs.  And  the  gist  or 
upshot  of  these  considerations  is  that  the  very 
concept  of  a  separatist  revelation  is  opposed  to  the 
claim  by  which  theists  have  thought  to  supersede 
the  mere  affirmation  of  authority — the  claim,  to 
wit,  that  a  benevolent  deity  might  reasonably  be 
expected  to  desire  to  reveal  himself  Such  a 
claim  seems  devoid  of  significance  when  the  deity 
is  supposed  not  only  to  postpone  his  revelation 
through  whole  aeons,  but  to  limit  it  stringently 
to  one  race  when  given,  and  only  ages  later  to 
withdraw  the  bar  without  attempting  as  deity 
to  make  the  revelation  universal.  If  revelation 
is  to  be  rationally  believed  in,  it  must  be  on  the 
conception  of  it  as  a  reasonable  processus. 

If  the    foregoing  line   of  argument  be   to  any 
extent    acquiesced    in,    we    seem    to   be   reduced 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY         47 

to  a  choice  between  the  two  theses  (d)  that,  an 
element  of  Revelation  or  supernatural  communica- 
tion being  conceded  to  all  prior  forms  of  religion, 
the  Hebrew  and  Christian  revelations  consisted 
successively  in  an  infusion  of  new  ideas  and  ideals 
into  systems  of  ritual  and  dogma  already  produced 
by  revelation,  and  (U)  that,  Revelation  being  supposed 
to  begin  with  the  Hebrews,  previous  religion 
represented  an  evolution,  without  Revelation,  of  a 
variety  of  dogmas  and  rites  so  satisfactory  to  the 
deity  that  they  only  needed  some  reform  to 
constitute  them  a  revelation.  The  latter  thesis 
is  so  artificial  that  I  am  perhaps  straining  theory 
in  supposing  it  to  be  maintainable  by  any  contem- 
porary theologian.  But,  noting  it  as  schematically 
possible,  I  would  simply  say  that  I  cannot  see  how, 
on  the  one  hand,  a  line  can  be  critically  drawn 
between  the  two  stages  supposed,  otherwise  than 
by  mere  reversion  to  the  authority  of  the  sacred 
books,  or  how,  on  the  other  hand,  any  limit  can 
be  placed  to  subsequent  developments  which  must 
equally  be  regarded  as  revelations.  Apart  from 
sheer  authoritarianism,  in  short,  there  seems  to 
be  no  logical  standing  ground  for  theology  short 
of  the  thesis  that  Revelation  is  to  be  conceived  as 
common  in  varying  measure  to  all  religions,  and 
that  discrimination  must  be  made  by  a  process  of 
criticism. 

I  say  ''in  varying  measure,"  for  1  do  not  see 


48  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

how  the  theologian  can  venture  to  claim  it  in  the 
same  degree  for  all.  If  that  were  granted,  it 
would  follow  either  that  all  are  equally  true  and 
equally  profitable,  or  that  all  are  equally  ordained 
for  those  who  have  received  them.  Both  proposi- 
tions are  countersenses  in  that  they  exclude 
judgment  under  the  appearance  of  passing  judg- 
ment. The  concept  "  equally  true "  voids  of  all 
practical  content  the  concept  of  Revelation ;  for  if 
all  religious  systems  so  called  are  to  be  regarded 
as  alike  true,  we  at  once  stumble  over  their 
cosmological  content,  which  would  thus  be 
certificated  as  true  and  revealed,  while  science  is 
to  be  thought  as  neither,  or  is  in  turn  to  be  in- 
cluded in  the  concept  of  Revelation.  And  if 
science  be  included,  what  can  be  left  out  of  the 
concept  ?  The  notions  "  equally  profitable  "  and 
"equally  ordained,"  again,  similarly  involve  the 
exclusion  of  all  criticism,  persuasion,  and  prefer- 
ence :  we  are  thrust  back  on  the  most  extravagant 
of  all  forms  of  authoritarianism. 

But  if  we  try  to  apply  intelligibly  the  thesis 
that  Revelation  enters  into  all  religions  in  varying 
degrees,  to  what  conclusions  can  we  attain  ?  In 
the  terms  of  the  case,  we  are  to  cognise  Revelation 
as  such  in  terms  of  our  standards  of  congruity, 
probability,  and  moral  and  philosophical  fitness. 
Then  is  everything  Revelation  which  squares  with 
our  acquired  ethics  and  our  critical  sense  ?     If  so, 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY 


49 


how  discriminate  between  so-called  religious  and 
so-called  scientific  truth,  so-called  religious  and  so- 
called  secular  history,  so-called  religion  and  so- 
called  speculation,  justice  and  common-sense? 
Surely  the  authoritarian  of  the  old  school,  whom 
we  have  ruled  out  qua  authoritarian,  has  the  best 
of  it  here  when  he  now  asks  whether  we  are  not 
in  effect  claiming  to  be  ourselves  the  vehicles  of 
revelation.  What  else  does  that  theologian  do 
who  distinguishes  the  geniune  Revelation  from  the 
spurious,  or,  if  you  like,  the  subsisting  Revelation 
from  the  superseded  ? 

Consider  again  the  concrete  problems  which 
face  the  theologian  who  undertakes  the  function 
in  question.  I  will  take  him  as  represented  by 
Frederick  Denison  Maurice,  who  sixty  years  ago 
grappled  with  the  ground  problem  of  Comparative 
Hierology  in  his  Boyle  Lectures  on  ''The  Religions 
of  the  World  and  their  Relations  to  Christianity."  ^ 
Very  boldly  he  put  the  fundamental  issue  in  his 
first  lecture  2 : — 

"  It  is  asked.  Is  there  not  ground  for  supposing  that  all  the 
different  religious  systems,  and  not  one  only,  may  be  legitimate 
products  of  that  faith  which  is  so  essential  a  part  of  man's  con- 
stitution ?  Are  not  they  manifestly  adapted  to  peculiar  times  and 
localities  and  races  \  Is  it  not  probable  that  the  theology  of  all 
alike  is  something  merely  accidental,  an  imperfect  theory  about 

1  Delivered  in  1845-46;  published  in  1848.     . 

2  Pp.  8.10. 


so  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

our  relations  to  the  universe,  which  will  in  due  time  give  place  to 
some  other  ?  Have  we  not  reason  to  suppose  that  Christianity, 
instead  of  being,  as  we  have  been  taught,  a  revelation,  has  its 
root  in  the  heart  and  intellect  of  man,  as  much  as  any  other 
system  ?  Are  there  not  the  closest,  the  most  obvious  relations 
between  it  and  them  ?  Is  it  not  subject  to  the  same  law  of 
decay  from  the  progress  of  knowledge  and  society  with  all  the 
rest?  Must  we  not  expect  that  it  too  will  lose  all  its  mere 
theological  characteristics,  and  that  what  at  last  survives  of  it 
will  be  something  of  a  very  general  character,  some  great  ideas 
of  what  is  good  and  beautiful,  some  excellent  maxims  of  life, 
which  may  very  well  assimilate,  if  they  be  not  actually  the 
same,  with  the  essential  principles  which  are  contained  in  all 
other  religions,  and  which  will  also,  it  is  hoped,  abide  for  ever  ? 
"  Notions  of  this  kind  will  be  found,  I  think,  in  much  of  the 
erudite  as  well  of  the  popular  literature  of  this  day ;  they  will 
often  be  heard  in  social  circles  ;  they  are  undoubtedly  floating 
in  the  minds  of  us  all.  While  we  entertain  them,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  we  can,  with  sound  hearts  and  clear  consciences,  seek 
to  evangelise  the  world.  Yet  they  are  not  to  be  spoken  of  as 
if  they  proceeded  from  a  mere  denying,  unbelieving  spirit :  they 
are  often  entertained  by  minds  of  deepest  earnestness ;  they 
derive  their  plausibility  from  facts  which  cannot  be  questioned, 
and  which  a  Christian  should  not  wish  to  question.  They  may, 
I  believe,  if  fairly  dealt  with,  help  to  strengthen  our  own  con- 
victions, to  make  our  duty  plainer,  and  to  show  us  better  how  we 
shall  perform  it.     All  their  danger  lies  in  their  vagueness." 

"Danger,"  I  suppose,  here  means  danger  to 
orthodoxy.  Let  us  see  if,  taking  it  to  mean 
danger  to  the  thesis  we  have  just  been  consider- 
ing, the  proposition  "  all  their  danger  lies  in  their 
vagueness  "  will  hold  good.  Maurice,  it  is  true, 
does  not  definitely  treat  the  non-Christian  faiths 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY         51 

as  products  of  Revelation :  he  exhibits  his  usual 
difficulty  in  reaching  any  explicit  conclusion.  But 
he  takes  up  a  position  which  is  at  least  half-way 
to  the  thesis  we  are  now  considering. 

''Have  we  not,"  he  says^  of  the  Hindoos, 
''  found  an  assurance  in  the  mind  of  these  people 
that  all  the  efforts  of  thought  in  them  must 
originate  in  a  communication  from  above,  and 
require  fresh  communications  to  meet  them  ? "  and 
he  sums  up  that  ''if  we  calmly  consider  it  ...  we 
shall  confess  that  the  Hindoo  is  right  in  his  belief, 
that  the  wisdom  of  which  he  sees  the  image  and 
reflexion  must  speak  and  declare  itself  to  him ;  that 
he  cannot  always  be  left  to  grope  his  way  amidst 
the  shadows  which  it  casts  in^  his  own  mind  or  in 
the  world  around  him."  Then  he  goes  on:  "I 
ask  nothing  more  than  the  Hindoo  system  and  the 
Hindoo  life  as  evidence  that  there  is  that  in  man 
which  demands  a  revelation — that  there  is  not  that 
in  him  which  makes  the  revelation ;  I  ask  no  clearer 
proof  of  the  fact,  that  whenever  the  religious 
feeling  or  instinct  in  man  works  freely,  without  an 
historical  revelation,  it  must  beget  a  system  of 
priestcraft.  It  must  be  satisfied  by  God,  or  over- 
laid by  man,  or  stifled  altogether." 

In  sum,  Maurice's  doctrine  of  comparative 
religion  appears  to  be  this :  that  each  great 
religious  system  lives  in  virtue  of  having  affirmed 
1  p.  54. 


52  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

some  important  religious  truth — the  Mohammedan 
that  of  the  divine  will ;  the  Hindoo  that  of  divine 
immanence,  or  that  of  the  presence  of  evil  in  life 
(it  is  not  quite  clear  which)  ;  the  Buddhist  that  of 
the  power  of  the  human  intellect ;  and  so  on  ;  that 
each  of  these  has  for  us  a  lesson,  but  each  leaves 
a  gap;  and  that  Christianity  fills  the  gap.  The 
scheme  is  rather  that  of  a  progressive  revelation 
than  that  of  a  single  and  exclusive  revelation. 
But  how  does  Maurice  make  good  his  thesis  of 
the  filling  of  the  gap  ?  So  far  as  I  can  construe 
his  eloquence,  his  test  is  one  of  socio-political 
success.  The  other  nations  are  morally  and 
materially  backward  because  of  the  incompleteness 
of  their  faiths  :  Christianity  is  the  creed  of  the 
advanced  nations  because  it  best  satisfies  the  needs 
of  human  nature. 

But  if  this  implicit  plea  be  taken  as  explicit,  and 
criticised  on  its  merits,  it  incurs  at  once  two 
objections  :  that  on  the  one  hand  Christendom 
was  long  unprogressive,  even  from  our  present 
point  of  view,  while  Islam  was  progressive;  that 
Christian  Abyssinia  is,  to  this  day,  barbaric  and 
illiterate  ;  that  Christian  Byzantium  was  stagnant 
for  a  thousand  years,  and  then  overthrown  by 
triumphant  Islam;  that  all  the  lands  of  early 
Christianity  are  to  this  day  Moslem,  since  the 
earlier  Moslem  conquest ;  and  that  many  Christian 
lands — as   Poland,   Ireland,   Greece,  Spain — have 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY         S3 

had  evil  fates ;  while  on  the  other  hand  Christi- 
anity has  been  arraigned  and  renounced  by 
myriads  who  find  it  wholly  unsatisfying,  and  the 
most  civilised  and  progressive  countries  are  pre- 
cisely those  in  which  the  criticism  of  Christianity 
has  gone  furthest.  Maurice  himself  wrote  in 
1848:  ''The  ultimate  tendencies  of  Buddhism 
to  entire  evaporation,  to  mere  negation,  are 
manifest  enough.  The  like  tendencies  assuredly 
exist,  perhaps  are  becoming  stronger  every  day,  in 
Christendom."  (Pref  p.  xix.)  What  was  true  then 
is  surely  true  now.  Where,  then,  is  the  test  ?  Is 
the  answer  to  the  Naturalists  merely  this,  that  the 
supernaturalness  of  Christianity  is  proved  by  its 
subsistence  ?  What  then  preserved  for  five 
thousand  years  the  religion  of  Osiris ;  and  what 
now  preserves  that  of  Brahma?  If  the  Hindoo  is. 
less  advanced  in  civilisation  than  the  Christian,  is 
not  his  faith  so  much  the  more  adapted  to  him, 
and  therefore  pro  tanta  divine,  in  terms  of 
Maurice's  thesis?  Is  it  seriously  asserted  again 
that  Revelation  is  finally  certified  by  the  counting 
of  heads — that  vox  populi  is  literally  vox  Dei  P 
And  if  the  most  widely  held  faith  carries  the  day 
against  the  others,  is  it  the  same  with  the  most 
numerous  Christian  sect  as  against  the  others  ? 

It  is  so  plainly  impossible  to  find  logical  or 
moral  foothold  in  a  pseudo-objective  test  of  this 
kind  that  I  will  turn  without  further  ado  to  that 


54  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

quasi-subjective  test  which  in  these  days  is  most 
commonly  posited  by  educated  Christians  as  giving 
them  their  warrant  for  behef  in  their  possession 
of  a  revelation — the  test  of  religious  experience. 
Ostensibly  this  is  an  appeal  to  the  highest 
tribunal,  the  supreme  court  of  revision,  the 
individual  conscience.  Supposing  the  appeal  to 
be  strictly  conducted  and  faithfully  tried,  we  have 
still  a  criterion  confessedly  non-scientific,  and  valid 
only  for  the  individual.  By  the  same  process  the 
Zoroastrian,  the  Brahman,  the  Buddhist,  the 
Moslem  gets  his  warrant  for  the  supernaturally 
revealed  character  of  his  faith ;  and  equally  the 
Naturalist  renews  his  warrant  for  placing  all  upon 
the  same  footing.  On  the  ground  of  the  absolute 
claim  from  ''experience,"  the  very  conception 
of  truth  begins  to  disintegrate.  Whatever  is 
earnestly  or  ecstatically  believed  is  ipso  facto 
divine  revelation.  ''The  Will  to  Believe "  comes 
in  to  deepen  the  confusion,  and  rational  proof 
ceases  to  be  a  desideratum.  The  state  of  mind 
produced  by  actual  drug-taking  has  the  same 
warrant  as  that  of  the  ordinary  experiential 
believer ;  and  we  know  through  Professor  James 
how  admirably  the  drug-taking  mystic  can  write, 
and  how  superbly  contemptuous  he  can  be  of  the 
normal  mental  life. 

Is  this  attitude  of  religious  solipsism  then  likely 
to    be    permanently    possible    for    any    religious 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY 


55 


community  as  such,  to  say  nothing  of  an  entire 
society  ?  For  the  solipsist,  of  course,  that 
question  is  no  test,  if  he  will  be  loyal  to  his 
solipsism.  But  is  he  ?  Is  not  this  whole  dialectic 
of  "religious  experience  "  developed  as  a  means  of 
supporting  collective  religion  ?  Has  it  not  been 
made  an  article  of  ordinary  ecclesiastical  propa- 
ganda, assimilated  exactly  as  dogmas  were  in  the 
past  ?  And  is  it  not  the  fact  that  the  satisfaction 
set  up  in  a  believing  mind  by  the  argument  from 
religious  experience  depends  for  its  continuance  on 
the  known  reception  of  the  same  formula  by  a 
number  of  others — by  the  given  denomination  at 
large,  or  by  a  number  of  thinkers  with  prestige  ? 
It  seems  to  me  to  be  clearly  so ;  and  in  that  case 
the  test  is  not  really  a  subjective  one  at  all,  but 
merely  a  pseudo-objective  one — a  variant  of  the 
old  theistic  argument  e  consensu  gentium.  Now, 
this  argument  always  involves  for  the  faithful 
inquirer  the  ordeal  set  up  by  the  spontaneous  or 
the  reasoned  incredulity  of  the  Naturalist ;  and  to 
refuse  to  meet  that  ordeal  is  to  surrender  the 
claim  to  let  so-called  religious  truth  grapple  with 
so-called  error.  In  that  event  the  individual 
believer  in  a  revelation  is  left  as  a  law  unto  him- 
self, each  man's  special  experience  being  thus  of 
the  nature  of  a  special  revelation.  On  such  a 
basis  no  collective  creed  is  sincerely  possible : 
every  variation  is  in  the  terms  of  the  case  valid  : 


56  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

the  individual  has  not  even  the  right  of  persuasion, 
save  in  so  far  as  he  may  hope  that  his  experi- 
ence will  countervail  for  another  that  other's 
experience. 

In  this  state  of  intellectual  atomism,  of  course, 
the  very  concept  of  comparative  hierology 
is  impossible.  The  implication  of  all  science 
is  that  from  the  collation  of  phenomena  there 
may  be  induced  a  general  truth  or  law ;  but  for 
him  who  really  believes  that  his  special  religious 
experience  constitutes  a  revelation,  all  incompatible 
experiences  are  either  excommunicated  as  fraudulent 
or  diabolical,  or  left  in  the  region  of  pure  mystery, 
untroubled  by  questioning  visitations  from  him. 
And  as  our  inquiry  to-day  proceeds  on  the  assump- 
tion of  the  recognition  of  a  possible  comparative 
hierology,  we  are  forced  back  to  a  ground  on 
which  rational  comparison  of  data  and  rational 
inference  are  possible.  But  if  the  foregoing 
process  of  elimination  is  valid,  there  is  no 
preliminary  footing  for  the  comparative  hierologist 
as  such,  save  that  of  universal  Naturalism.  That 
is  to  say,  the  concept  of  special  or  exceptional 
revelation  is  for  his  science  what  the  conception 
of  special  or  exceptional  creation  is  for  the  as- 
tronomer, the  geologist,  or  the  biologist.  His 
ultimate  discrimination  between  religions,  in  other 
words,  must  be  in  itself  naturalistic — a  discrimina- 
tion in  terms  of  his  reasoned  estimate  of  the  credi- 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY         57 

bility  of  given  naiTatives  and  the  fitness  of  given 
philosophemes  and  moral  doctrines.  For  him  the 
best  religion  will  simply  be  the  most  highly  evolved, 
and,  in  the  terms  of  the  case,  there  can  be  no 
terminus.  There  can  be  no  sacrosanct  dogma  ;  no 
irrepealable  formula.  The  old  specific  term  revela- 
tion has  become  non-significant  as  such,  like  the 
term  creation :  it  applies  either  to  all  doctrine  or 
to  none ;  and  if  it  be  taken  as  a  synonym  for 
scientific  truth  it  is  still  non-significant.  He  may 
still  prefer  monotheism  to  polytheism,  Christianity 
to  Buddhism,  but  only  as  the  biologist  may 
"  prefer  "  the  horse  to  the  zebra,  or  the  elephant 
to  the  rhinoceros  —  as  being  more  profitable  to 
the  more  civilised  man. 

It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  such  a  conclusion 
will  be  readily  or  cheerfully  accepted  by  those 
trained  in  any  given  creed  claiming  to  be  a  super- 
natural revelation.  The  comparatively  quietistic 
theory  of  Spencer  of  Cambridge  was  so  far  from 
being  tolerable  to  temperaments  trained  on  the 
lines  of  faith,  that  it  was  practically  ignored  by 
professional  scholars  till  anthropology  had  newly 
forced  forward  the  problem  in  the  nineteenth 
century.  In  other  words,  men  instinctively  recoiled 
from  the  very  work  of  comparative  hierology, 
even  with  the  revelationist  concept  formally 
safeguarded.  And  again  and  again  we  find  the 
promoters  of  naturalistic  criticism  doing  their  work 


58  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

under  a  conviction  that  they  are  serving  super- 
naturalism  on  the  very  ground  of  their  task. 
Thus  Astruc  wrought  out  his  discrimination  of  the 
Elohist  and  Jehovist  elements  in  the  Pentateuch 
expressly  by  way  of  defending  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship on  new  lines  against  its  impugners ;  even  as 
Father  Simon  before  him  had  done  his  analytical 
work  by  way  of  refuting  the  arguments  of  Spinoza. 
It  would  be  hard  to  reckon  how  much  we  owe 
to  the  insight  of  men  who  had  not  insight 
enough  to  realise  the  consequences  of  their 
doctrines :  practically  all  truth  is  attained  by  such 
means. 

It  is  therefore  not  in  the  least  surprising  to 
find  scholars  whose  work  is  logically  subversive  of 
the  concept  of  Revelation  claiming  to  maintain 
it  against  its  assailants.  Not  only  does  Canon 
Sanday,  for  instance,  avow  his  acceptance  of  the 
main  results  of  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Old 
Testament/  and  proceed  to  affirm  that  ^'the  old 
conviction  that  we  have  in  it  a  revelation  from 
God  to  man  is  not  only  unimpaired  but  placed  on 
firmer  foundations  ;  "  but  Canon  Driver  puts  in  the 
front  of  his  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the 
Old  Testament  the  assertion  that  manifestly 
**  both  the  religion  of  Israel  itself,  and  the  record 
of  its  history  embodied  in  the  Old  Testament, 
are    the    work  of  men  whose  hearts  have    been 

^Inspiration  :  Bampton  Lectures  for  1893,  5th  ed.  (1903),  pp.  120-22. 


COMPARATIVE  HIEROLOGY         59 

touched  and  minds  illumined  in  different  degrees 
by  the  Spirit  of  God."  In  comment  on  the  words 
of  Canon  Sanday  I  will  simply  cite  those  other  words 
of  Canon  Driver,  which  confess  that  the  main  con- 
clusions of  the  higher  criticism  are  such  as,  "  upon 
any  neutral  field  of  investigation,  would  have 
been  accepted  without  hesitation  by  all  conversant 
with  the  subject:  they  are  only  opposed  in  the 
present  instance  by  some  theologians  because  they 
are  supposed  to  conflict  with  the  requirements  of 
the  Christian  faith.^ "  And  in  comment  upon  the 
claim  in  which  Canon  Driver  coincides  with  Canon 
Sanday  I  will  merely  cite  those  further  words  of 
the  former : — 

"  The  history  of  astronomy,  geology,  and,  more  recently,  of 
biology,  supplies  a  warning  that  the  conclusions  which  satisfy 
the  common,  unbiassed,  and  unsophisticated  reason  of  mankind 
prevail  in  the  end.  The  price  at  which  alone  the  traditional 
view  can  be  maintained  is  too  high." 

It  is  that  criterion  that  I  have  sought  to  apply 
to-day.  The  process  of  reason,  free  alike  from 
presupposition  and  experiential  predilection,  is  that 
which  alone  truly  combines  the  objective  and  the 
subjective  tests.  It  alone  yields  the  thinker  the 
personal  certificate  which  conscience  craves,  with 
the  endorsement  from  without  which  is  stipulated 
for  by  sanity  and  modesty.  To  be  entirely  alone 
in  opinion  is  to  have  the  gravest  ground  for  dis- 

1  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  preface. 


6o  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

quietude  ;  to  go  in  paths  recommended  solely  by 
their  safety  or  by  the  numbers  which  throng 
them  is  to  renounce  the  higher  intellectual  and 
moral  life.  But  the  student  can  claim  to  be  loyal 
to  the  largest  experience  in  choosing,  while  upon 
the  ground  of  any  science,  to  be  loyal  to  the  law 
of  universal  science,  and  to  recognise  there  no 
other  allegiance. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  AND  THE  CHRIS- 
TIAN  FAITH,  by  the  Rev.  CANON  MACCUL- 
LOCH,  Portree. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  AND  THE 
CHRISTIAN  FAITH 

The  study  of  religions  from  a  critical  or  scientific 
point  of  view,  in  other  words  Comparative 
Religion,  or,  less  happily,  the  science  of  religions, 
is  a  thing  of  recent  growth.  When  science  has 
invaded  every  branch  of  human  activity  it  was 
hardly  to  be  expected  that  what  is  highest  of  all 
among  man's  aspirations  would  long  remain  outside 
the  field  of  scientific  investigation.  To  many  it  is 
no  doubt  abhorrent  that  science,  investigating,  as 
R.  L.  Stevenson  said,  with  the  cold  finger  of  a 
starfish,  should  dare  to  lay  hand  upon  the  sacred 
ark  wherein  are  centred  all  the  highest  and  hoHest 
aspirations  and  hopes  of  humanity.  They  forget, 
perhaps,  that  according  to  all  precedent,  it  is 
science  which  ought  to  suffer,  like  the  men  of 
Beth-shemesh,  while  the  ark  itself  should  remain 
intact.  I  hope,  however,  to  show  before  the  end 
of  this  paper  that  not  only  is  the  investigation 
likely  to  be  profitable  to  the  truly  scientific 
investigation,  but  that  religion  itself  may  benefit 
and  its  highest  and  final  form  be  even  more  firmly 
established.     If    that    highest    form    should    be 

proved    to    have    sprung    ultimately    from    lowly 

63 


64  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

beginnings,  like  man  himself,  if  agam  it  should 
lose  what  after  all  are  mere  excrescences  upon  its 
noble  fabric,  none  need  be  dismayed.  For  it  is 
possible,  as  Emerson  reminds  us,  to  bear  the  dis- 
appearance of  things  we  have  been  wont  to 
reverence  without  losing  our  reverence.  And  on 
the  other  hand,  if,  as  we  believe,  there  be  any 
truth  in  religion,  science,  which  is  the  friend  of 
truth,  will  only  establish  that  truth  the  more 
firmly. 

The  idea  of  comparing  religions  for  one  purpose 
or  another  long  antedates  the  more  strictly 
scientific  comparison.  We  owe  much  to 
Herodotus  from  a  comparative  point  of  view,  and 
several  other  classical  writers  were  equally  fond 
of  noting  points  of  likeness  or  of  difference 
between  their  own  and  other  faiths.  We  need 
not  go  outside  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament 
to  find  other  examples  of  this  method.  There  the 
new  Christian  faith  is  constantly  compared  with 
the  existing  Jewish  religion,  and  S.  Paul,  confront- 
ing an  audience  of  cultured  pagans  and  philosophers, 
though  he  points  to  the  more  excellent  way  of 
Christianity,  was  by  no  means  blind  to  what  was 
good  in  paganism.  Again,  the  theologians  of  the 
Eastern  Church,  whose  good  influence  was,  alas ! 
to  be  so  soon  overborne  by  the  weight  of  the 
more  uncompromising  Westerns,  and  especially  by 
S.   Augustine,    were   quite    sympathetic   in    their 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  6$ 

treatment  of  paganism,  and  though  not  always 
impartial  in  their  co-ordination  of  facts,  were 
yet  scientific  enough  to  show  that  many  pagan 
doctrines  and  rites  resembled  each  other,  and 
also  paved  the  way  for  Christianity.  Paganism, 
however,  was  soon  to  disappear,  and  it  was  not 
till  the  epoch  of  the  Crusades  and,  later,  the 
Renaissance,  that  other  forms  of  religion  than  the 
Christian  appeared  upon  the  field  of  vision  and 
began  also  to  be  examined.  Meanwhile,  outside 
Christianity,  a  Mohammedan  prince,  Akbar, 
Emperor  of  India,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  showed 
a  laudable  desire  to  investigate  and  understand 
other  faiths  than  his  own.  During  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries  the  investigation 
proceeded  apace,  and  much  knowledge  was 
accumulated,  but  almost  invariably  it  was  with  a 
view  to  discover  that  ^'key  to  all  the  mythologies  " 
over  which  the  pedantic  Dr  Casaubon  in  Middle- 
march  spent  so  much  time  and  labour.  The  more 
truly  scientific  study  of  religions  may  be  said  to 
have  begun  only  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and 
even  then  it  was  somewhat  too  often  dominated 
by  the  thought  of  the  key  to  fit  all  locks.  Comte 
explained  all  religion  from  a  primitive  fetichism, 
Herbert  Spencer  from  a  primitive  ghost-worship ; 
Max  Mliller  resolved  everything  into  sun  and 
dawn  myths,  certain  German  investigators  into 
storm  myths.     And   though   recent   investigators 

E 


\ 


66  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

have  wrought  upon  a  much  wider  field  of  know- 
ledge, they,  too,  have  not  been  without  the  craze 
for  one  all-compelling  formula  which  would  explain 
religion  wherever  found.  Totemism,  like  that 
blessed  word  Mesopotamia,  has  had  much  to 
answer  for,  and  at  present,  in  the  works  of 
Mannhardt  and  Frazer,  what  that  redoubtable 
medisevalist,  Mr  Arthur  Machen,  has  recently 
called  "  the  Covent  Garden  theory,"  seems  to 
prevail — the  theory  viz.,  that  agricultural  ritual 
for  the  benefit  of  growth  in  field  or  fold,  lies  ^ 
behind  most  of  the  higher  forms  of  religious  1 
phenomena.  * 

Nevertheless  the  scientific  investigation  proceeds 
apace,  and  we  now  know  much  more  about  the 
probable  beginnings  of  religion,  about  the  actual 
nature  not  only  of  savage  but  of  the  greater  faiths, 
and  about  what  Professor  James  has  aptly  styled 
"the  varieties  of  religious  experience,"  than  could 
have  been  hoped  for  by  the  investigators  of  three 
or  four  decades  ago.  Anyone  who  has  devoted 
the  least  time  to  the  study  of  the  subject  knows 
what  a  vast  amount  of  material  on  all  these  aspects 
of  the  science  has  already  been  accumulated,  how 
much  has  already  been  done  by  way  of  sifting  and 
classifying,  and  how  much  still  remains  to  be  done 
by  way  of  solving  the  numerous  problems  which 
have  arisen. 

Before  proceeding   to   discuss   the  question  of 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  6y 

how  far  such  a  science  as  that  of  comparative 
religion  is  likely  to  affect  the  Christian  faith  in 
one  way  or  another,  either  beneficially  or  the 
reverse,  we  may  ask  at  this  stage  what  the  precise 
value  of  such  a  science  is.  I  shall  only  point  out 
a  few  ways  in  which,  it  seems  to  me,  this  com- 
paratively youthful  science  has  already  given 
brilliant  and  valuable  results. 

First  of  all  it  has  enabled  us  to  see  that  religion  I 
is  for  all  practical  purposes  a  universal  phenomenon. 
Quite  recently  it  was  boldly  maintained  that  there 
were  tribes,  if  not  races,  which  were  absolutely 
without  any  religion.  And  even  now  it  is  not 
uncommon  to  read  in  some  book  of  travels  that 
some  savage  tribe  knows  no  god,  acknowledges, 
like  the  Sadducees,  neither  angel  nor  spirit, 
breathes  no  prayer,  and  has  no  hope  beyond  the 
grave.  Frequently,  however,  our  traveller  goes 
on  to  describe  some  rite  or  some  belief  which 
gives  evidence  of  a  fairly  wide  religious  outlook 
on  the  part  of  this  so-called  non-religious  tribe. 
Of  course  everything  depends  upon  the  point  of 
view,  and  the  religion  of  a  savage  may  not  always 
commend  itself  to  the  cultured  twentieth  century 
traveller.  Yet  none  the  less  it  may  be  a  true  form 
of  religion.  Moreover,  a  savage  is  often  most 
unwilling  to  reveal  the  secrets  of  his  cult  to  the 
first  anxious  enquirer  who  comes  along  armed  with 
a  rifle  and  a  list  of  questions.     Like  more  advanced 


I 


68  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

religious  believers,  he  is  shy  of  revealing  what 
things  lie  between  the  gods  and  himself,  and  will 

**  not  trust  his  melting  soul,  save  in  his  Maker's  sight." 

More  patient  and  more  sympathetic  investigation 
has  proved  that  even  the  lowest  savages,  Australians 
and  Andaman  islanders,  have  certain  religious  be- 
liefs of  a  comparatively  high  order,  which  can 
certainly  be  proved  to  be  of  native  growth,  and 
not  derived  from  missionary  teaching.  Further, 
go  back  as  far  as  you  will  into  the  dark  backward 
and  abysm  of  time,  and  still,  wherever  man  has 
left  memorials  of  himself,  these  still  hint  that  he 
had  some  form  of  ritual  and  belief,  even  in  the  old 
stone  age.  As  to  his  ape-like  predecessor  we  can, 
of  course,  say  nothing,  though  an  Italian  savant^ 
Professor  Pinsero,  has  maintained  that  the  higher 
apes  worship  serpents.  Be  that  as  it  may,  com- 
parative religion  has  proved  already  that  man, 
wherever  found  and  in  whatever  circumstances 
placed,  is  a  religious  being. 

The  next  service  which  comparative  religion 
has  rendered  is  to  show  that  in  the  religious,  no 
less  than  in  other  spheres,  there  has  been  a  gradual 
progress  from  lower  to  higher.  There  have  been 
many  instances  of  a  set-back  from  a  higher  to  a 
lower  stage,  but  that  is  no  more  than  what  might 
have  been  expected.  On  the  whole,  wherever 
religion   has   had   a    fair  field,  it  has   shown    its 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  69 

capacity  to  shake  itself  free  of  lower  things  and  to 
rise  to  more  spiritual  heights  of  vision.  Here,  of 
course,  we  must  all  admit  the  influence  which  men, 
who  have  had  what  may  be  called  a  genius  for 
religion,  have  effected  upon  the  minds  of  their  fel- 
lows, raising  them  out  of  the  lower  spheres  to  the 
higher,  and  thus  advancing  the  whole  course  of 
religious  belief.  The  cause  of  this  religious 
genius  in  them  may  be  explained  in  different 
ways,  according  to  the  point  of  view.  Here  we 
may  assume  that  it  was  because  they  were  more 
accessible  than  other  men  to  the  divine  influence 
upon  their  souls.  Such  men  were  Confucius, 
Lao  Tsze,  Zarathushtra,  the  Hebrew  prophets, 
the  Greek  philosophers  and  dramatists.  And  so 
far  as  the  great  world  religions  are  concerned, 
Mohammed,  Buddha,  and  Christ  are  supreme 
examples  of  this  genius  for  communicating 
religious  enlightenment  to  men.  The  Christian, 
of  course,  makes  a  still  higher  claim  for  Christ, 
yet  even  from  his  point  of  view,  he  can  admit 
that  Christ's  religion  was  not  wholly  severed  from 
all  that  had  preceded  it ;  in  other  words,  it  was 
the  crowning  achievement  of  the  long  course  of 
religious  development.  Admitting,  then,  the 
influence  of  the  religious  genius  upon  religious 
evolution,  what  has  this  science  taught  us  re- 
garding the  nature  of  that  evolution?  Hitherto 
it  has  been  customary  with  students  of  comparative 


70  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

religion  to  assume  that  ghost-worship  or  the  cult  | 
of  spirits  in  natural  objects  or  some  such  primitive  | 
form,  in  other  words,  what  is  usually  called  an  \ 
animistic  view  of  the  universe,  preceded  all  other  j 
forms.  But  it  is  now  beginning  to  be  admitted  | 
that  a  stage  existed  anterior  to  this  animistic  or 
spiritual  view.  Before  man  had  begun  to  be  an 
animist,  before  he  had  made  the  discovery  of  a 
spirit  in  himself  or  had  imagined  spirits  in  all 
parts  of  nature,  in  face  of  which  he  was  ready  to 
bow  down  and  worship,  he  may  have  imagined 
a  Being,  greater  than  himself  yet  like  him,  a 
Being  who  was  not  envisaged  as  a  spirit,  for  man 
as  yet  knew  nothing  about  spirit.  This  Being 
was  supposed  to  have  made  man  and  things  in 
man's  world,  and  somehow  men  may  have  hoped 
to  go  to  him  after  death,  while  also  they  may 
have  thought  themselves  responsible  to  him  for 
certain  actions.  Such  a  Being,  of  course,  need 
not  have  had  any  high  divine  traits ;  we  are  not 
to  regard  him  as  in  any  sense  resembling  the  God 
of  later  monotheism.  He  was  simply  a  magnified, 
non-natural  man,  yet  he  represented  to  early  men 
a  sufficient  divinity,  answering  to  the  slight 
religious  impulses  now  waking  and  stirring  within 
them.  Such  a  Being  is  worshipped  by  the  lowest 
savages,  while  they  certainly  do  not  worship 
ghosts  or  spirits  of  nature.^     It  is,  of  course,  a  far 

1  See  Lang,  Making  of  Religion^ 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  71 

cry  from  the  lowest  existing  savages  to  early  men, 
but  such  an  assumption  as  to  early  man's  religion 
seems  best  to  explain  the  fact  that  savages  at  a 
higher  stage  know  of  such  a  high  God,  but  do 
not  worship  him.     They  worship,  instead,  a  host  of 
spirits.     If  then  such  a  high  God  was  worshipped, 
why  did  men  cease  to  worship  him  ?     Comparative 
religion   would   explain   this    by   the   rise   of  the 
animistic    view  of  things,  whereby    man    learned 
that  there  were  such  things  as  spirits  in  him  and 
all  around    him.      Most    usually  he    feared  such 
spirits :   hence  it  was  necessary   to  placate   them 
in  various  ways.      And  as  they  seemed  to  come 
much  nearer  to  his  life  than  the  high  God,  this 
Being  was  more  and  more  disregarded,  but  never 
quite  forgotten.     But  he  was  now  also  conceived 
as   a  spiritual  Being.      Hence,  though   from  one 
point  of  view,  religion  had  so  far  been  degraded 
by  animism,  in  another  sense  it  benefited  by  the 
introduction  of  a  spiritual  view  of  the  universe. 
So  when  spirits  became  gods  and  polytheism  held  / 
the  field,  this  remote  divinity  may  once  more  have  | 
been  brought  near  to  men  by  being  merged  with  \ 
the  god  who  eventually  became  the  head  of  the  i 
polytheistic  Olympus.     Finally,  when  individuals  or  I 
tribes  or  nations  set  aside  their  gods  many,  and 
lords  many,  and  worshipped  One  God  only,  it  was, 
still  this  Being,  imagined  by  early  man,  who  took 
this  high  place  in  their  hearts.     So  this  science 


3 


)C 


^ 


72  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

teaches  us,  man  sought  after  and  found  that  God, 
who  is  not  far  from  everyone  of  us. 

Again  this  science  enables  us,  by  a  careful 
comparison  of  different  phases  of  religion  with 
those  higher  forms  which  religion  has  achieved, 
to  discover  those  elements  of  truth  which  lie 
behind  the  mass  of  grotesque  or  crazy  or  grovel- 
ling or  disgusting  superstitions,  whether  of  custom 
or  belief,  which  have  sprung  up  wherever  man  has 
been  religious.  Indeed,  both  comparative  religion 
and  anthropology  have  shown  that,  at  certain  low 
stages  of  man's  history,  it  has  been  precisely  those 
superstitious  or  those  crazy  customs  which  have 
eventually  made  for  what  is  best  in  man's  spiritual 
or  social  life.  For  example,  the  system  of  tabus, 
working  in  both  the  religious  and  the  social  sphere, 
and  to  us  often  perfectly  unintelligible,  has 
certainly  been  a  prominent  factor  in  educating 
the  human  mind  to  believe  that  there  were  some 
things  which  it  was  not  merely  unlawful,  but 
absolutely  hurtful  to  do.  Similarly,  as  we  have 
just  seen,  the  animistic  theory  of  the  universe 
has  been  of  immense  power  in  teaching  men  the 
nature  of  spiritual  existence.  I  need  not  elaborate 
this  point  further,  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer 
to  it  later. 

Meanwhile,  let  us  note  that  comparative  religion 
enables  us  to  estimate  what  are  likely  to  be  the 
permanent  elements  in  religion.      Those    things 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  ^2> 

which  are  common  to  all  religions,  although  there 
may  be  immense  differences  in  the  manner  in 
which  men  have  formulated  or  believed  them,  we 
may  assume  to  have  a  vital  place  in  the  fabric  of 
ultimate  religious  truth.  Eliminate  the  mere 
accidentals,  strip  any  universal  religious  belief  of 
its  superstitious  or  immoral  or  unscientific  wrappings, 
and  we  have  at  least  a  number  of  conceptions 
which  we  may  provisionally  assume  to  be  true. 
And  if  we  see  further  that  they  exactly  correspond 
to  man's  needs  and  aspirations,  the  assumption 
must  change  into  fact.  And  if  we  see  that  any 
one  religion  contains  all  these  conceptions  in  a 
comparatively  pure  form,  and  that  it  is  adapted 
or  has  adapted  itself  to  all  sorts  and  conditions 
of  men  in  all  ages  and  places,  then  we  may 
further  believe  that  we  have  reached  that  form 
of  religion  which  is  likely  to  be  final  on  this  side 
of  time. 

There  are  only  three  forms  of  religion  which 
are  likely  to  be  singled  out  as  having  any  claim 
to  this  final  form:  Buddhism,  Mohammedanism, 
Christianity.  Mohammedanism  we  may  eliminate, 
as  it  certainly  owes  all  that  is  best  in  it  to  Judaism 
and  Christianity,  while  there  is  a  certain  amount 
of  reason  in  the  statement  that  used  often  to  be 
made,  that  it  is  really  a  Christian  heresy.  There 
is  no  time  to  discuss  the  relative  claims  of 
Buddhism  and  Christianity.     I  shall  here  assume 


N 


74  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

with  most  students  of  comparative  religion  that, 
quite  apart  from  the  truth  of  Christianity,  it 
embodies  in  itself  in  a  supremely  spiritual  form 
all  that  is  best  in  other  religions.  Suffice  it  to 
say  of  Buddhism  that,  since  it  does  not,  in  its 
original  and  theoretical  form,  postulate  the 
existence  of  a  God,  it  is  more  than  doubtful 
whether  it  has  a  claim  to  rank  as  a  religion  at 
all,  while  the  present  working  Buddhistic  faith 
certainly  falls  far  behind  Christianity  as  a 
whole. 

Before  going  on  to  discuss  this  claim  of 
Christianity  to  rank  as  the  highest  form  of 
religion,  containing  all  that  is  best  in  all  that 
preceded  it,  to  be  "  the  fulness  after  many 
foretastes,  the  substance  after  many  shadows," 
we  may  note  some  varying  views  of  those  who, 
in  the  past  or  in  the  present,  have  studied 
religions  from  a  comparative  point  of  view ;  and 
have  retired  from  the  study  with  a  much  less 
optimistic  opinion  of  religion  than  is  here 
entertained. 

There  is,  e.g.  the  opinion  often  maintained 
before  the  more  strictly  scientific  study  of 
rehgions,  that  all  religions,  including,  of  course, 
Christianity,  were  equally  false  and  hurtful  to 
the  progress  of  mankind.  It  is  the  view  which 
underlies  Volney's  work,  Les  Ruines^  and  which 
Shelley    enforced    in    the    most    passionate    and 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  ys 

exalted  verse  with  all  the  fervour  of  an  apostle 
of  iconoclasm.     Religion  is  to  him  a 

"  prolific  fiend, 
Who  peoplest  earth  with  demons,  hell  with  men, 
And  heaven  with  slaves." 

Both  Volney's  and  Shelley's  views  were  based 
upon  the  theory  put  forth  by  Toland  in  1696, 
and  adapted  by  most  of  the  eighteenth  century 
deists  and  by  the  philosophes  of  France,  that  all 
forms  of  religion  were  simply  calculating  hypocrisies 
which  had  been  invented  by  priests  in  all  parts  of 
the  world,  in  order  to  obtain  power  over  the 
masses  or  from  some  other  worse  motive.  It  is 
needless  to  say  that  the  theory  has  received  not 
the  slightest  confirmation  from  comparative 
religion,  that  though  priests  have  often  exploited 
existing  religions  for  their  own  private  ends, 
religions  existed  quite  apart  from  priests,  while 
the  people  frequently  owed  it  to  priests  that  they 
taught  them  knowledge  and  tried  to  stamp  out 
superstition.  On  the  other  hand,  the  deists 
should  have  remembered  that  certainly  none  of 
the  greater  religions  owed  its  origin  to  a  priest, 
but  more  usually  to  a  layman.  Cynics  may  draw 
certain  conclusions  from  this  fact  derogatory  to 
the  priesthood,  but  it  offers  no  support  to  the 
theory  of  eighteenth  century  philosophers. 

On  different  grounds,  however,  the  theory  that 
all  religions  are  false,  is  occasionally  found  among 


^^  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

students  of  comparative  religion,  especially  those 
who  approach   it    from   the   anthropological  side. 
In  examining  religious  beliefs  and  customs  at  all 
stages,  but  more  especially  among  barbaric  peoples 
and  those  removed  from  the  state  of  the  lowest 
savagery,  they  have  perforce  to  take  account  of 
many    horrible    and    grovelHng    superstitions,    of 
many  cruel  and  disgusting    rites    by  which  men 
have  sought  to  placate  "whatever  gods  there  be," 
or    to   obtain    union    with    them.      Terrors   and 
cruelty,  rather  than  any  degree  of  spiritual  insight, 
are   much   more    in  evidence   at  these  stages  of 
religious  belief,   as   is   shown  by  the  abject  fear 
which  the  Red  Indian  and  the  Negro  exhibit  for 
the  spirits  which  are  everywhere  about  their  path, 
or  by  the  dire  tale  of  human  sacrifice  so  common 
in    all  parts   of  the   world,    or,  again,   in    higher 
religions,    by    the    painful    ascetic    life    and    the 
ghastly    tortures    in    which    men    saw    something 
grateful    to    the    deity,  or,    once    more,  in  many 
barbaric    and   even    more    civilised    rehgions,    the 
horrible  beliefs  regarding  the  punishment  of  men 
in  the  world  beyond  the  grave.    Man  has  endowed 
his  gods  with  high  spiritual  qualities,  such  as  he 
dimly  knew  himself  to  possess,  but  at  the   same 
time  he  has  made  them  in  his  own  image,  envisaged 
them    with   a    low    animal    nature    hke   his  own, 
making  them  cruel    and    lustful    and   unloveable. 
What  a  famous  cleric  said  to  a  brother  theologian, 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  77 

"Your  god  is  my  devil,"  might  truly  be  applied 
to  the  gods  of  the  nations  viewed  from  the  point 
of  view  just  described.  Some  have  therefore 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  since  we  find  so  much 
that  is  cruel  and  horrible  and  utterly  false 
among  lower  religions,  they  must  be  quite 
lacking  in  any  spiritual  aspect,  and  that  all  forms 
of  religions,  even  the  highest,  must  be  equally 
false  and  wrong.  Now  the  reality  of  spiritual 
truth,  the  existence  of  God  and  of  a  spiritual 
world,  must  not  be  measured  by  man's  conceptions 
of  them  at  lower  levels  than  our  own.  Because 
men  imagined  their  gods  to  be  lustful  and  cruel, 
we  need  not  suppose  that  the  God  we  worship  is 
simply  a  figment  of  the  imagination.  Or  because 
their  attitude  to  their  gods  was  too  often  degraded 
and  superstitious,  it  does  not  follow  that  our 
more  spiritual  devotion  is  simply  a  more  advanced 
form  of  superstition.  Although  rites  and  beliefs 
all  over  the  world  are  crude  and  material,  we 
must  not  forget  that  they  did  enwrap  a  spiritual 
idea  or  ideas,  and  that  though  the  outward  form 
is  more  evident  to  the  eyes  of  the  student,  the 
inner  kernel  of  spiritual  truth  need  not  have  been 
absent.  The  savage,  the  barbarian  desired  union 
with  his  gods  just  as  truly  as  does  the  loftiest 
Christian  saint  with  God,  and  if  he  resorted  to 
superstitious  and  horrible  methods  of  attaining 
that  union,  we  must  not  blame  him  overmuch  or 


78  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

deny  all  reality  to  his  desires.  The  savage,  the 
barbarian  sought  for  God  if  haply  he  might  feel 
after  Him  and  find  Him  Who  is  not  far  from  every 
one  of  us.  We  ought  no  more  to  measure  the 
spiritual  side  of  savage  or  barbaric  religion  by  its 
cruel  and  ghastly  rites  and  beliefs  than  we  would 
measure  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion  by  the 
S.  Bartholomew  massacre,  or  Smithfield  fires,  or 
the  Inquisition,  or  persecutions  and  religious  wars 
innumerable.  It  does  not  follow  because  our 
ancestors  made  so  many  errors  of  fact  and  mixed 
them  with  their  religion,  that  we  should  therefore 
leave  oiF  being  religious  at  all.  If  we  turn  to 
other  fields  of  savage  activity  we  shall  see  how 
absurd  such  an  attitude  would  be.  JM[^ic  is  the 
outcome  of  man's  inward  sense  of  the  harmony  of 
sound,  and  it  has  produced  the  noblest  and  most 
beautiful  compositions.  But  we  do  not  deny 
its  existence  or  condemn  these  compositions 
because  the  music  of  the  savage  is  crude  and 
elementary,  and  to  our  ears  discordant.  Again, 
art  is  the  expression  of  a  certain  group  of  impulses 
in  man  which  lead  him  to  give  them  outward 
form  and  substance,  and  have  yielded  the  highest 
works  of  the  great  artists.  Still  less  do  we  deny 
the  reality  of  these  impulses  because  savage  art 
is  uncouth  and  grotesque  and  mechanical.  Rather, 
on  the  principle  of  evolution,  we  see  in  the 
musical    and    artistic    productions   of  the    savage, 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  79 

the  first  steps  in  a  long  connected  series  which 
has  finally  ended  in  the  marvellous  creations  of 
the  great  masters  of  song  and  of  design.  So,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  religious  rites  and  beliefs  at 
lower  levels  do  not  commend  themselves  to  us, 
we  must  see  in  them  man's  halting  and  ignorant 
attempts  to  give  expression  to  the  instinct  of 
religion,  the  spiritual  impulse  within  his  soul,  an 
impulse  as  real  and  as  worthy  as  the  impulses 
which  have  produced  all  art  and  music  and  poetry 
and  all  knowledge. 

We  come  now  to  a  new  criticism  of  the 
Christian  religion,  or  rather  of  certain  specific 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  which  is  increasingly 
made  by  students  of  this  science.  Assuming  that 
Christianity  is  the  final  form  of  religion,  or  at  all 
events,  the  highest  form  it  has  yet  attained  and 
that  which  corresponds  most  closely  to  man's  needs 
on  this  earth,  and  comparing  the  chief  doctrines 
which  compose  it  with  the  beliefs  and  practices  of 
other  faiths,  we  find  many  analogies,  many  points 
of  Hkeness  to  these  doctrines  everywhere.  They 
may  be  crude  in  form,  they  may  be  superstitious 
in  intention,  they  are  doubtless  in  many  cases 
mere  human  inventions  or  myths.  Still  there  they 
are,  and  the  question  is  at  once  raised, — What 
is  their  relation  to  the  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
or  how  are  those  doctrines  affected  by  the  fact 
that  men  had  already  formulated  similar  ideas  for 


/. 


8o  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

themselves  ?  Take,  for  example,  the  belief  in  the 
Incarnation,  one  of  the  most  specific  doctrines  of 
Christianity.  Turning  to  the  great  fabric  of  non- 
Christian  religions,  we  find  that  the  possibility  of 
a  god  tabernacling  for  a  time  in  some  earthly  form, 
was  a  thought  common  to  every  stage  of  human 
belief.  In  Polynesia  the  priests  are  called  ^^  god- 
boxes  "  because  they  are  supposed  to  be  temporary 
vehicles  of  divinity,  and  this  is  a  belief  which  is 
found  among  many  savage  peoples.  Or  where 
totemism  has  assumed  a  religious  form,  we  find 
that  the  totem  divinity  is  believed  to  be  incarnate 
in  certain  animals  of  one  kind,  which  form  the 
totem  of  some  particular  clan.  Or  again  we  have 
the  common  belief  in  a  divine  priest  or  divine  king, 
who  was  the  representative  or  incarnation  of  a 
god  or  a  vegetation  spirit,  and  upon  whom,  by  virtue 
of  his  divinity,  the  fertility  of  the  earth  depended. 
The  final  issue  of  this  belief  is  perhaps  to  be  seen 
in  the  worship  of  king  or  emperor  as  divinity 
which  is  found  in  Babylonia,  in  Egypt,  in  ancient 
Peru,  and  elsewhere.  Or  again  in  Buddhism,  we 
have  the  idea  that  the  Dalai-Lama  is  an  incarnation 
of  the  divinity  Amitabha,  or  in  ancient  Egypt  the 
belief  in  the  sacred  animal  which  was  an  incarna- 
tion of  Osiris.  Or  we  have  the  Hindu  conception 
of  incarnation  as  witnessed  by  the  avatars  of  Vishnu, 
the  number  of  which  varies  from  ten  to  twenty- 
eight,  now  in  animal,  now  in  human  form.  Moreover, 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  8t 

we  note  in  connection  with  some  of  these  incarna- 
tions, and  also  as  a  general  item  of  folk-belief  all 
over  the  world,  the  belief  in  the  possibility  of 
Virgin  birth. 

Again,  take  the  Christian  belief  in  Christ's 
death  as  an  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin,  quite  apart 
from  the  various  theories  o^  atonement  which  have 
been  current  at  different  ages  of  Christian  history. 
Sacrifice,  in  one  form  or  another,  whether  to 
please  or  propitiate  or  to  thank  the  gods  or 
spirits,  has  been  universal  save  perhaps  in  the 
lowest  forms  of  religion.  In  turn,  such  forms  of 
sacrifice  gave  rise  to  sacrifices  of  atonement  or 
expiation,  in  which  the  victim,  most  frequently  a 
human  being,  was  substituted  either  for  one  or 
many,  or  by  his  death  bore  away  certain  evils 
afflicting  the  community  usually  as  the  result  of 
divine  anger.  Such  sacrifices  originated  as  a 
result  of  the  beHef  which  Csesar  says  was  held 
by  the  Celts  of  Gaul,  viz.,  ^'they  consider  that, 
unless  man's  life  be  given  for  man's  life,  the 
divinity  of  the  immortal  gods  cannot  be  appeased." 
Savage  and  barbarian,  Semite  and  Aryan,  have 
known  and  used  such  atoning  sacrifices.  More- 
over, where  we  have  the  belief  in  a  divine  priest 
or  king,  the  human  vehicle  of  deity,  we  find  that 
there  is  some  probability  that  this  personage  was 
periodically  slain,  that  this  was  regarded  as  a 
slaying  of  the  god  who,    however,  came  to   life 

F 


P 


§2  ST  NlNlAN  LECTURES 

again  in  his  successor,  and  that  the  purpose  of 
this  slaying  was,  in  fact,  to  give  life  fuller  and 
freer  to  men  and  animals  and  growing  crops.  Out 
of  death  came  life. 

Or  as  a  third  example,  take  the  Christian  belief 
/^  in  the  resurrection.     The  revival  of  the  body  after 

death  would  seem  to  have  been  held  in  primitive 
times,  otherwise  we  can  hardly  explain  the  per- 
sistence of  certain  things  in  folk-belief  and  folk- 
custom,  in  which  the  dead  have  undoubtedly  all 
that  belongs  to  living  and  bodily  men.  The 
Babylonians  may  have  cherished  the  belief  that 
the  body  did  not  wholly  die;  the  Egyptians  almost 
certainly  did  so.  Hindoos  thought  of  a  spiritualised 
body  after  death ;  Parsis  believed  in  a  resurrection 
of  the  body,  and  the  Celts  held  that  after  death 
the  spirit  assumed  another  bodily  form.  But 
besides  such  a  general  belief  in  future  bodily 
existence,  there  was  also  a  whole  series  of  myths 
regarding  the  death  and  resurrection,  or,  at  all 
events,  the  revival,  of  a  divine  being.  Both  in 
Oriental  and  in  Greek  religions,  and  possibly  else- 
where also,  myth  told  how  this  divine  being  had 
been  slain  and  had  been  restored  to  life.  Both 
these  events  were  the  recurring  subjects  of  ritual 
and  dramatic  representation;  the  death  was  the 
subject  of  deep  lamentation,  the  restoration  was 
the  cause  of  deep  rejoicing.  Arising,  perhaps 
ultimately  from  the  idea  of  the  death  of  the  spirit 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  83 

of  vegetation  and  its  subsequent  revival  with  the 
growing  crops  in  spring,  these  phenonema  are  seen 
in  the  various  but  similar  cults  of  Adonis,  of 
Thammuz,  of  Attis,  of  Osiris,  of  Dionysos,  of 
Persephone. 

Taking  such  well-nigh  universal  beliefs  as  these, 
certain  students  of  comparative  religion  maintain 
that  since  they  are  simply  man's  inventions,  the 
specific  Christian  beliefs  in  Incarnation,  Atone- 
ment, and  Resurrection,  which  they  so  much 
resemble,  are  equally  fictitious  beliefs  which  have 
accumulated  around  the  personality  of  the  founder 
of  Christianity.  More  especially  with  regard  to 
those  cults  in  which  myth  and  ritual  spoke  of  a 
god  slain,  and  then  rising  again,  or  in  connection 
with  which  the  god's  human  incarnation  or  repre- 
sentative was  actually  slain  and  his  powers  and 
divinity  at  once  passed  on  to  his  successor,  it  has 
been  maintained  that  these  three  Christian 
doctrines  owe  much  to  those  cults  which  embodied 
such  beliefs  and  practices.  In  other  words,  historic 
Christianity,  in  so  far  as  it  centres  in  the  three 
facts  of  the  Incarnation,  the  Death,  and  the 
Resurrection  of  Christ,  owes  much  to  the  mytho- 
logy and  ritual  of  the  slain  god  and  the  divine 
being  of  these  various  cults. 

There  is  no  time  to  take  up  the  question  of 
how  far  this  influence  of  these  cults  upon  the 
doctrines  of   Christianity  is  historically  possible ; 


84  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

suffice  it  to  say  that  there  is  no  evidence  that 
such  a  myth  and  ritual  existed  among  the  Jews  of 
Christ's  day,  and  that  it  is  extremely  unlikely  that 
His  Jewish  disciples  would  be  influenced  by  cults 
which  they  abhorred,  to  form  a  Christ  legend  in 
accordance  with  the  myth  and  ritual  of  those  cults. 
Here  it  seems  that  Dr  Frazer,  who,  in  his  great 
work,  The  Golden  Bough^  exploits  this  theory,  has 
shown  a  singular  lack  of  historical  perspective  and 
also  of  critical  acumen  in  forcing  a  number  of 
extremely  doubtful  pieces  of  evidence  to  fit  his 
preconceived  opinions.  Any  one  reading  his  third 
volume,  in  which  he  applies  the  whole  theory  of 
the  slain  god  to  explain  how  the  ethical  mission  of 
Christ  obtained  the  character  of  a  divine  revela- 
tion which  culminated  in  the  Passion  and  death  of 
the  Incarnate  Son  of  a  heavenly  Father,  must  feel 
how  inadequate  the  supposed  cause  is  to  account 
for  such  a  stupendous  effect.  He  must  also  see 
that  there  is  not  a  scrap  of  evidence  that  the  Jews 
had  a  yearly  festival  in  which  two  divine  incar- 
nations, a  Father  and  a  Son,  played  their  parts, 
the  Son  being  put  to  death  to  save  the  life  of  his 
Divine  Father.  These  two  persons  are  said  to 
have  been,  mythically,  Mordecai  and  Haman. 
Haman  was  put  to  death ;  Mordecai  survived  ;  and 
each  year  this  was  re-enacted.  The  Divine  Son, 
however,  came  to  be  called  Barabbas  ;  but  the 
Jews   at  last   became  confused,  and   applied  the 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  85 

name  Barabbas,  not  to  the  representative  of  the 
slain  god,  but  to  the  god  whose  representative 
survived.  Finally,  by  an  accident,  the  place  of  the 
Divine  Son  was  thrust  upon  Christ,  the  ethical 
teacher,  who  thus  came  to  be  regarded  as  actually 
what  had  been  claimed  for  Him  in  festival  play. 
The  series  of  assumptions  upon  which  the  whole 
argument  rests  is  so  patent  to  the  eye,  the 
different  positions  which  the  argument  occupies  at 
different  times  are  so  evidently  contradictory  of 
each  other,  that  it  is  well-nigh  incredible  that  any 
serious  student  of  religion  could  bring  forward 
such  a  chain  of  reasoning  as  an  explanation  of 
Christianity.  Indeed,  if  the  subject  involved  were 
not  so  sacred,  one  would  be  inclined  to  laugh  at 
the  misapplied  ingenuity  of  the  author.  But  Dr 
Frazer's  ingenious  arguments  throughout  the 
whole  of  his  work  rest  too  often  upon  mere 
assumptions  for  him  to  be  regarded  as  having  said 
the  final  word  upon  the  origins  of  Christianity,  or, 
for  that  matter,  upon  the  origins  of  religion. 

But,  taking  the  likeness  of  pagan  myths,  rites, 
and  customs,  to  those  specific  Christian  doctrines 
as  a  whole,  or  again  to  the  Christian  belief  in  sin, 
or  inspiration,  or  the  future  life,  we  find  that 
there  is  likeness  in  unlikeness.  We  may  compare, 
but  we  are  bound  also  to  contrast.  No  one  can 
candidly  approach  the  pagan  parallels  to  Christian 
beliefs  without  seeing  that  there  is  a  vast  differ- 


86  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

I  ence  between  the  two  groups.  The  latter  are 
symbolic  of  a  whole  background  of  spiritual  and 
ethical  truth ;  they  are  suffused  with  a  spirituality 
which,  though  not  utterly  wanting  in  their  pagan 
prototypes,  is  certainly  buried  beneath  a  mass  of 
material  wrappings,  and  this  alone  should  make  us 
pause  before  classing  them  finally  with  these 
pagan  beliefs  as  just  so  many  human  suppositions 
with  no  real  basis  of  fact.  No  one  can  compare, 
e.g.^  the  incarnations  of  Vishnu  with  those  of 
Christ  without  being  aware  of  a  different  spiritual 
atmosphere.  No  one  again  can  take  the  myth 
and  ritual  of  the  slain  and  restored  gods  and  com- 
pare them  with  the  ideas  associated  with  the 
Death  and  Resurrection  of  Christ,  without  seeing 
that  in  the  latter  case  we  are  moving  on  an 
entirely  different  and  a  higher  plane  of  thought. 
They  have  a  wealth  of  ethical  and  spiritual  mean- 
ing which  is  quite  unobscured,  and  which  is 
hardly  to  be  found  in  the  myth  and  ritual  which  is 
supposed  to  have  given  rise  to  them.  And  this  is 
true  of  these  doctrines  when  we  first  encounter 
them  in  Christian  theology.  They  are  not 
doctrines  which,  after  many  centuries,  have  been 
at  last  stripped  of  all  materialistic  wrappings  and 
finally  given  an  ethical  and  spiritual  form.  They 
have  that  form  from  the  very  first.  If  they  owed 
anything  to  the  cult  of  the  slain  and  restored  god, 
they  succeeded  instantly  in  transforming  all  that 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  87 

was  crude  and  material  in  that  cult  into  some- 
thing intensely  spiritual.  Wherein  lay  the  power 
which  caused  this  transformation?  This  is  left 
entirely  unexplained,  or  those  who  maintain  the 
theory  shut  their  eyes  to  the  spiritual  aspect  of 
these  Christian  beliefs  altogether. 

But  is  no  other  view  possible  ?  Must  we,  on 
the  strength  of  these  numerous  and  world-wide 
parallels  to  Christian  doctrines,  at  once  throw 
the  latter  aside,  discarding  their  historic  back- 
ground, and  so  deprive  Christianity  of  its  position 
as  the  absolute  religion?  May  we  not  rather 
take  all  the  religious  beliefs  which  find  a  parallel  in 
the  Christian  creed  as  foreshadowing,  and  to  some 
extent  preparing  the  hearts  of  mankind  for  it? 
In  other  words  the  religious  ideas  into  which  men 
had  put  so  much  meaning,  but  which  had  so  far 
forth  no  background  of  reality,  at  last  found  ful- 
filment in  actual  fact,  in  the  things  which  lie 
behind  the  historic  creed  of  Christendom.  This 
view  takes  nothing  from  Christianity,  while  it 
gives  a  greater  value  to  many  beliefs  and  customs 
of  world-wide  extent,  even  such  as  seem  cruel  and 
superstitious,  and  shows  that  men  were  every- 
where seeking  for  what  they  instinctively  felt 
would  best  assist  and  also  explain  their  lives. 
Thus  the  likeness  of  so  many  pagan  to  Christian 
beliefs  would  not  be  the  result  of  mere  accident, 
nor  would  it  mean  that  both  were  equally  false. 


88  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

There  is  something  more  in  them  than  can  be 
accounted  for  by  "-  the  web  of  being  blindly  wove 
by  man."  They  suggest  that  God  at  no  time  left 
Himself  without  witness,  but  in  divers  parts  and 
in  many  manners  led  mankind  on  to  the  Christ 
who  was  to  be.  He  was  watching  over  the 
religious  beliefs  of  men,  and  though  there  was  so 
much  of  the  human  element  in  them,  so  much 
that  to  our  view  is  superstitious  and  irrational, 
there  also  was  the  seed  of  the  divine  sowing. 
The  beliefs  in  incarnation,  in  revelation,  in  sin,  in 
the  value  of  sacrifice,  in  a  god  dying  for  men,  in 
resurrection,  in  immortality,  were  just  so  many 
lines  leading  up  to  that  religion  which  is  based 
upon  the  belief  in  One  who  was  incarnate,  for  us 
men  and  for  our  salvation,  who  revealed  to  us  the 
Father,  who  taught  us  the  true  nature  of  sin,  who 
died,  and  whose  death  was  to  be  of  endless 
efficacy  to  all  generations  of  men,  who  rose  again, 
and  who  brought  life  and  incorruption  to  light  by 
His  Gospel.  While  the  time  of  that  full  revela- 
tion was  yet  far  off,  men  were  everywhere  work- 
ing their  way  towards  it,  and  God  was  preparing 
them  for  it.  The  universality  of  those  ideas  we 
have  just  spoken  of,  even  if  there  were  mingled 
with  them  much  that  is  gross  and  offensive, 
suggests  a  preparation  of  mankind  for  Christianity. 
The  myths  and  representations  of  suffering  and 
dying  gods,  reviving  after  the  touch  of  death,  may 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  89 

have  had  little  spiritual  and  ethical  meaning  to 
the  pagan  mind,  yet  they  must  to  some  extent 
have  served  to  show  that  these  gods  had  entered 
into  the  arena  of  conflict  where  humanity  suffered 
and  died,  and  that  they  could  not  be  indifferent  to 
human  fate.  They  witnessed  to  the  need  of 
divine  help  and  example,  and  doubtless  they 
helped  to  prepare  the  minds  of  many  for  the 
Christian  view  of  the  incarnation,  death,  and 
resurrection  of  Christ. 

They  who  can  take  a  wide  and  generous  view 
of  God's  purposes  for  humanity  will  therefore 
be  glad  to  trace  in  all  these  ideas  a  seed  of  truth 
preserved  until  the  time  should  come  that  it  might 
blossom  and  bear  much  fruit.  '^The  soul  of  the 
wide  world  dreaming  of  things  to  come "  gave 
outward  expression  to  those  ideas,  and  the  dream 
at  last  found  fulfilment  in  the  Christian  faith.  So 
we  may  say  with  Tennyson — 

"  There  is  light  in  all, 
And  light,  with  more  or  less  of  shade,  in  all 
Man-modes  of  worship." 

Or  going  further  back  to  S.  John's  thought  of 
Christ  as  the  true  light  who  lighteth  every  man 
that  Cometh  into  the  world,  we  may  say  that  no 
religious  belief  is  without  some  spark  of  that 
eternal  radiance. 

The  fact  that  Christianity,  which  claims  to  be 
a  revealed  religion,  has  much  in  common  with  the 


90  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

beliefs,  rites,  and  customs  of  natural  religion  every- 
where, is  frequently  made  a  matter  of  ridicule 
of  that  claim  to  revelation,  especially  by  men  of 
the  evolutionary  school.  They  expect  that  a  re- 
vealed religion  must  be  something  apart,  must 
have  no  connection  with  anything  which  ever 
preceded  it.  It  must  obliterate  all  former  beliefs, 
and  must  supersede  them  by  absolutely  and 
hitherto  unknown  conceptions.  This  argument 
seems  unworthy  of  an  evolutionist,  and  it  is  one 
which  could  hardly  ever  be  made  by  a  Christian. 
If,  as  we  believe,  God  has  helped  men  to  realise 
Him  more  fully,  it  could  only  be  by  leading  them 
along  the  lines  upon  which  their  religious  develop- 
ment was  already  proceeding.  He  taught  them 
truth  by  making  use  of  methods — beliefs  and 
rites,  with  which  they  were  already  familiar.  He 
did  not  present  them  with  conceptions  with  which 
they  were  up  till  then  absolutely  unfamiliar. 
Had  He  done  so,  how  could  they  ever  have 
understood  them  ?  Rather,  the  conceptions  of  revela- 
tion, while  transcending  all  that  had  gone  before, 
were  not  out  of  touch  with  them.  The  truths 
of  revelation  by  no  means  gave  the  lie  to  the  blind 
gropings  of  natural  reHgion.  Men  had  worshipped 
out  of  their  blindness,  but  their  instinct  was  a 
true  one,  and  at  last  the  scales  fell  from  their 
eyes,  and  they  saw  themselves  in  possession  of 
a   religion    which  certainly  superseded  the  faiths 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  91 

of  the  past,  but  only  in  so  far  as  it  transcended 
them. 

We  may  say  then  of  all  such  beliefs  that  they 
are  instinctive  attempts  at  realising  what  was  one 
day  to  be  given  to  men  fully  and  freely  from  the 
divine  side,  that  upon  them  the  fabric  of  Christian 
belief  could  found  itself,  and  that  Christianity  may 
therefore  claim  to  be  the  answer  to  the  hopes  and 
longings  of  paganism,  as  it  sought  with  a  patience 
that  is  pathetic  for  the  truth  which  would  make 
it  free.  The  beliefs  of  paganism  were  crude  and 
partial  and  mixed  up  with  much  error  and  super- 
stition. Christianity  presents  all  these  beliefs  free 
from  those  things,  in  the  highest  ethical  and 
\  spiritual  form,  and  welded  into  a  complete  system 
which  fully  answers  to  every  need  of  the  human 
soul.  No  other  religion  ever  presented  such  a 
purview  of  the  things  which  are  most  longed  for 
in  the  hearts  of  men,  or  promised  an  eternal  and 
clear  grasp  of  the  things  which  eye  hath  not  seen 
nor  ear  heard.  Thus  it  explains  the  religions 
which  have  gone  before  it,  and  so  from  the  point 
of  view  of  religious  growth  we  may  regard  it  as 
the  highest  stage  in  a  long  series  of  religious 
developments,  yet  owing  its  supremacy  to  the 
nature  and  Person  of  its  Founder. 

As  the  dim  guesses  of  the  astrologers  at  last 
resulted  in  the  science  of  astronomy ;  as  the 
fanciful    experiments    of    the    alchemists    at    last 


92  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

resulted  in  the  science  of  chemistry,  so  we  may 
say  that  the  guesses  and  fancies  of  the  soul  of 
man  regarding  God  and  things  divine  at  last 
found  fulfilment  in  the  Christian  religion.  Men 
strove,  guided  by  the  divine  idea,  after  what  was 
one  day  to  be  historical  fact.  Here  is  the  value 
of  this  view  of  the  comparative  method  with 
reference  to  the  Christian  faith.  Though  making 
Christianity  absolute  and  final,  it  does  not  dismiss 
all  others  as  false :  it  admits  the  truth  in  them. 
Religions  have  passed  away,  religion  itself  never 
dies;  it  slowly  arrives  at  its  perfect  form.  We 
need  not  regret  their  disappearance,  since  ^'the  one 
remains,  the  many  change  and  pass."  Their  task 
of  preparation  was  done,  their  time  of  teaching 
the  nations  had  come  to  an  end.  The  one  religion 
has  taken  their  place,  and  has  preserved  whatsoever 
things  in  them  were  true,  just,  pure,  and  of  good 
report.  Moreover,  examining  all  religions  from 
this  point  of  view,  we  find  that  Christianity  sums 
up  in  itself  in  one  perfect  form  all  their  leading 
and  dominant  ideas,  putting  each  in  its  proper 
setting,  and  purifying  each  of  its  grosser  elements. 
For  example,  the  nothingness  of  life  compared 
with  the  infinite  existence  of  God  is  the  chief 
note  of  Hindu  religion.  Christianity  lays  stress 
on  this,  but  balances  it  with  the  thought  of  life 
as  an  arena  of  activity  where  evil  may  be 
conquered    by    good.     Buddhism    lays    stress    on 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  93 

the  need  of  redemption,  but  it  makes  it  far  oflF 
and  impracticable ;  Christianity  brings  redemption 
near  to  every  human  being.  Confucianism  is 
dominated  by  the  conception  of  a  moral  life  rather 
than  by  a  spiritual  ideal.  Christianity  is  also  a 
system  of  ethics,  but  it  knows  that  morality  must 
be  touched  with  spiritual  emotion,  that  emotion 
which  springs  from  a  disinterested  love  to  God. 
The  religion  of  Lao  Tsze  pointed  above  all  things 
to  the  reign  of  law.  Our  Lord  made  this  one  of 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  His  revelation.  But 
to  Him  law  was  not  impersonal,  it  was  the  thought 
of  God  unfolding  itself  in  action :  it  was  God 
Himself  as  the  supporter  and  guide  of  the  universe. 
Zoroastrianism,  and,  to  a  less  degree,  the  religion  of 
Scandinavia,  looked  upon  life  as  the  scene  of  the 
great  struggle  between  good  and  evil.  They  knew 
of  sin  as  a  great  enemy,  but  looked  forward  to  the 
future  triumph  of  good.  Christ  also  calls  His 
disciples  to  a  conflict.  He  taught  us  the  true 
nature  of  sin,  but  He  did  not  think  of  it  as  an 
actual  existence  warring  ever  against  good.  It 
was  rather  the  perversion  of  the  will,  and  He  came 
to  set  men's  wills  free.  But  He  also  invited  all 
men  to  work  with  Him  in  the  task,  and  He,  too, 
looked  forward  to  the  triumph  of  His  cause. 
Thus  we  might  pursue  the  leading  thought  of 
every  religion  and  find  it  taken  up  and  glorified  in 
Christianity.     Within  the  radius  of  its  influence 


94  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

each  of  these  religions  changed  permanently  the 
conditions  of  man's  existence  as  a  spiritual  being. 
Each  one  opened  a  door  in  a  vast  temple  through 
which  its  followers  might  enter  and  worship^  But 
when  we  pass  from  them  to  Christianity  we  see 
how  near  and  yet  how  far  it  is  from  every  one  of 
them.  Christ  threw  all  these  little  doors  into  one 
vast  portal  when  He  said  to  humanity,  ^^I  am  the 
Way."  Christianity  combines  all  that  is  best  in 
other  faiths,  yet  it  is  not  a  mere  eclectic  religion. 
It  has  overpassed  them  all,  it  has  combined  into 
one,  so  that  we  cannot  see  the  lines  of  union,  all 
the  truths  which  had  gone  before  through  Him 
who  is  the  Truth.  Christianity  is  not  the  mere 
fusion  of  many  varying  doctrines,  borrowed  from 
other  faiths,  into  one.  It  is  itself  a  living  and 
organic  whole,  not  forgetful  of  the  past,  but 
answering  to  the  varied  aspirations  of  bygone 
ages  and  ancient  creeds. 

This  is  not  to  say,  of  course,  that  every  human 
interpretation  of  the  historic  faith  of  Christianity 
/  is  equally  valuable  and  permanent.  Dogmatic 
systems  based  upon  it  must  have  their  day  and 
cease  to  be.  A  comparative  study  of  Christian 
dogmas  leaves  little  room  for  doubt  that  in  shaping 
them  men  did  borrow  more  or  less  from  pagan 
modes  of  thought,  from  things  expressed  in  pagan 
beliefs.  This,  e.g.^  is  true  of  much  that  has  been 
taught  regarding  the  atonement  and  regarding  the 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  95 

future  life.  The  Church  as  a  whole  has  never 
laid  down  any  complete  theory  of  the  atonement, 
but  individual  theologians  and  schools  of  thought 
have  not  been  slow  to  do  so,  and  have  undoubtedly 
borrowed  much  from  the  most  primitive  and 
revolting  pagan  ideas  concerning  sacrifice  to  an 
angry  God.  The  value  of  the  atonement  is  seen 
in  the  way  in  which  it  has  answered  to  man's 
direst  needs,  but  we  shall  probably  never  quite 
grasp,  much  less  exhaust  its  meaning  on  this  side 
of  time.  Though  it  is  the  fulfilment  of  pagan 
beliefs  concerning  sacrifice  and  the  slain  God,  we 
must  not  explain  it  only  according  to  these  beliefs : 
it  has  a  much  richer  and  fuller  meaning.  Similarly 
with  the  future  life.  Our  Lord  said  httle  regard- 
ing it.  But  that  little  was  full  of  hope,  and 
pointed  to  the  great  future  as  one  of  continuous 
purification,  of  education,  of  insight,  of  union  with 
God.  But  the  merest  acquaintance  with  the 
eschatology  of  the  ancient  world  will  show  us 
where  theologians,  misinterpreting  hints  laid  down 
in  Scripture,  obtained  the  material  with  which  they 
elaborated  a  great  system  of  the  last  things  and 
formulated  the  ghastly  and  repellent  doctrines  of 
eternal  punishment  and  unending  hell.  These 
examples  will  show  us  that  though  the  historic 
foundations  of  the  creed  cannot  change,  our 
human  interpretations  of  them  have  not  the  same 
permanence.     We  must  enlarge  our  interpretations 


96  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

of  them  to  suit  human  needs  as  these  vary  from 
age  to  age.  And  here  the  science  of  comparative 
religion  will  teach  us  to  discard  whatever  things 
in  Christian  theology  are  akin  to  the  temporal, 
the  superstitious,  the  crude  in  all  pre-Christian 
faiths.  As  a  science,  theology  has,  in  the  past, 
been  too  much  a  matter  of  abstract  conceptions. 
It  is  becoming  increasingly  clear  that  without 
abandoning  the  eternal  foundations  of  our  creed, 
it  must  take  into  account  many  factors,  must  sweep 
the  whole  horizon  of  life,  and  must  not  confine  its 
outlook  to  a  scholar's  study,  away  from  the  high- 
way where  the  busy  human  current  sweeps  along. 
Finally  such  a  view  of  comparative  religion  in 
^^  its  relation  to  Christianity  teaches  us  that  we 
Ij  need  not  distress  ourselves  regarding  religious 
origins,  whatever  these  may  prove  to  have  been. 
We  may  be  quite  sure  that  however  religion  first 
began,  and  doubtless  like  man  himself  it  had  a 
lowly  beginning,  it  was  not  a  mere  illusion  nor  a 
pursuit  of  shadows.  At  every  moment  of  its 
growth  God  was  with  it,  and  though  the  divine 
leading  may  often  have  been  foiled  by  human 
error,  it  could  not  ultimately  fail  of  its  result. 
We  do  not  despise  morality  although  we  know 
that  moral  ideas  have  had  a  long  and  devious 
history,  and  have  often  begun  with  the  narrowest 
possible  field  of  action.  Man  arrived  at  ethical 
conceptions  of  purity,  of  goodness,  of  kindness, 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  97 

and  so  on,  very  gradually,  and  often  we  must  seek 
these  beginnings  in  customs  and  restrictions  which 
to  us  have  scarcely  any  ethical  content  at  all. 
Similarly,  the  products  of  man's  intellect  or 
imagination  are  none  the  less  valuable  although 
of  human  shaping,  and  although  in  their  beginning 
they  appear  to  us  contemptible.  Thus  man's 
religious  aspirations,  be  they  what  they  may,  can 
never  be  wholly  void  and  unmeaning  to  him  who 
has  a  true  conception  of  the  comparative  method 
of  religion.  They  reveal  man  as  at  all  stages  of 
his  history  the  seeker  after  God,  pursuing  his 
quest  through  many  dark  and  devious  ways, 
arriving  often  at  places  whiqh  seemed  to  bar  all 
further  progress,  yet  never  relinquishing  the 
quest.  Some  may  say  that  he  was  merely 
pursuing  a  phantom ;  but  on  the  other  hand  when 
we  think  of  what  religion  has  achieved  for  man, 
when  we  regard  the  religious  aspirations  of  great 
and  holy  souls  wherever  found,  when  we  look 
upon  religion  as  a  key  which,  better  than  any 
other,  unlocks  the  mysteries  of  human  life,  we 
must  acknowledge  that  the  quest  was  not  in  vain, 
that  if  man  pursued  a  phantom  it  was  at  least  one 
which  was  his  friend,  which  did  comfort  and  en- 
lighten his  soul,  and  give  him  a  peace  which  the 
world  could  not  give.  And  of  this  phantom 
which  proved  to  be  man's  friend,  we  may  say  in 
Browning's  words — 

"  What  if  this  friend  happen  to  be  God  ?  " 
G 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  AND  THE  RE- 
LIGION OF  JESUS,  by  the  Rev.  P.  A.  GORDON 
CLARK,  Perth. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  AND  THE 
RELIGION  OF  JESUS 

I.  A  Sketch  of  the  Growth  of  the  Science 
OF  Religion 

The  earliest  glimpse  which  science  gives  us  of 
our  race  shows  us  men  living  in  little  groups  or 
herds,  each  on  its  own  bit  of  land,  and  in  com- 
munion with  a  number  of  spirits.  How  this  state 
of  matters  had  arisen  was  a  question  men,  at 
that  period,  never  asked  ;  it  was  accepted  as 
part  of  the  order  of  nature  that  each  group 
should  have  its  own  spirits,  and  therefore  its 
own  religion,  as  it  had  its  own  land  or  its  own 
language.  When  the  groups  became  nations,  the 
portions  of  land  a  national  territory,  and  the 
spirits  national  gods — a  nation,  its  land,  and 
its  religion  were  still  considered  a  unity ;  to  be 
connected  with  one  was  to  be  associated  with 
all,  to  forsake  one  was  to  leave  all.  Ruth^  said 
to  Naomi,  ^' Where  you  dwell  I  will  dwell,  your 
people  shall  be  my  people,  and  your  gods  my 
gods."  Jeremiah  is  horror  stricken  at  the  bare 
idea  of  Israel   forsaking  Jehovah,  and  exclaims,^ 

1  Ruth  i.  6.  2  jer.  U.  lo,  ii. 


lOI 


I02  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

''Pass  over  to  the  islands  of  Kittim,  and  see;  and 
send  to  Kedar,  and  consider  diligently,  and  see 
if  there  hath  been  such  a  thing.  Hath  a  nation 
changed  its  gods  ?  "  A  traveller  and  thinker  like 
Herodotus  might  try  to  learn  something  of  the 
religion  of  other  lands,  but  the  profession  of  a 
distinct  religion  by  each  nation  was  apparently 
so  right  and  natural  that  it  never  dawned  even 
on  him  to  ask  why  or  how.^ 

The  isolation  of  the  Mediterranean  nations,  parti- 
ally destroyed  by  conquests  like  those  of  Alexander, 
was  terminated  by  their  inclusion  in  the  Roman 
Empire.  This  caused  the  conception  that  each 
nation  must  have  its  own  religion  to  give  place 
to  four  ways  of  looking  at  the  problem  of  different 
religions. 

I.  Syncretism.  Men  identified  the  gods  in 
whom  they  believed  with  the  new  ones 
they  had  come  to  know.^ 

1  The  advent  of  Christianity,  the  universal  religion,  caused  the 
idea  of  national  religions  to  pass  into  that  of  national  Churches. 
"The  sixth  century  gave  strong  proofs  of  the  necessity  that  each 
country  which  possessed  a  language  and  literature  should  possess  also 
its  national  Church  "  (Finlay,  Greece  under  the  Romans,  iii.  lo).  The 
idea  of  national  Churches  still  survives  in  Protestantism. 

2  CsBsar  (-5.  G.  vi.  17)  and  Tacitus  (Ger.  9)  identify  the  gods 
of  Rome  with  those  of  Gaul,  and  the  Gauls  raised  altars  to  the  gods 
of  their  conquerors.  Herodotus  (ii.  50,  145)  identifies  the  gods  of 
Greece  with  those  of  Egypt.  Apuleius  {Met.  xi.)  identifi^es  Isis  with 
a  number  of  female  divinities.  Oriental  and  Egyptian  worships  were 
gathered  together  in  the  cult  of  Isis  but  specially  in  that  of  Mithra, 
"  the  greatest  effort  of  syncretism  to  absorb  without  extinguishing  the 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION         10.3 

Scepticism.  Men  who  had  lost  faith  in 
their  own  religion  scorned  that  of  their 
neighbour,  hence  the  various  cults  "  con- 
sidered by  the  people  as  equally  true,  and 
by  the  magistrates  as  equally  useful,  were 
considered  by  the  philosophers  as  equally 
false."! 

Investigation.  Some  few  men  like  Plutarch  ^ 
and  Lucian  ^  seriously  studied  the  religions 
of  other  nations,  but  the  impossibility  ot 
scientific  investigation  and  the  lack  of  any- 
thing like  a  proper  method  made  such 
attempts  abortive.  These  three  finally 
gave  way  to 

Proselytism.  This  finds  its  first  expression 
in  the  work  of  an  unknown  Jew,  whom  the 
idea  that  Jehovah  was  not  a  national  deity 
but  the  only  god,  had  led  to  the  further 
thought  that  Jehovah's  religion  could  not 
be  for  a  nation  but  for  men.     He  tried,  by 


gods  of  the  classic  pantheon  in  a  cult  which  was  almost  monotheistic  " 
(Dill,  Roman  Society  from  Nero  to  Marcus  Aure/ius,  p.  585.)  See 
note  on  page  1x4  and  page  126. 

1  Gibbon,  ii.  i.  "The  toleration  of  the  Roman  Empire  rested  more 
on  contempt  than  upon  the  respect  due  from  society  to  the  freedom  of 
individual  opinion  "  (Milman's  note  to  Gibbon,  chap,  ii.) 

2  Plutarch  in  the  Be  Is.  attempts  an  explanation  of  the  Egyptian 
religion.  He  says  four  explanations  have  been  given,  and  he  adds  his 
own,  dealing  specially  with  the  zoolatry  and  the  vestments,  which  is 
as  fantastic  as  the  others. 

3  See  JDe  Syria  Dea. 


104  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

throwing  his  newly  found  truth  into  the 
form  of  a  story  (which  we  call  the  Book  of 
Jonah),  to  inspire  his  co-religionists  to 
propagate  their  faith  by  showing  them 
the  certainty  of  its  acceptance  by  the 
Gentiles.  From  that  day  Judaism  began 
to  "  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one 
proselyte."  Other  Eastern  faiths  were 
roused  into  a  similar  enthusiasm. 

From  the  heart  of  Judaism  there  emerged  a 
new  faith,  the  religion  of  Jesus,  devoid  of  ritual, 
with  "  the  promise  of  the  life  which  now  is,  and 
of  that  which  is  to  come,"  supremely  ethical, 
and  intensely  aggressive.  This  finally  became 
supreme.  Its  triumph  is  marked  by  the  passing 
of  proselytism  into  persecution.  Official  Chris- 
tianity, the  religion  of  Jesus  as  embodied  in  the 
Roman  Church,  viewed  all  other  religions  as 
false,^  and  their  devotees  as  eternally  lost.  The 
Jews,  and  at  a  later  period  the  Mohammedans,  were 
assailed  with  plunder  and  persecution.  This 
method  of  looking  at  and  dealing  with  the  ad- 
herents of  other  religions  prevailed  throughout 
the  Middle  Ages,  and  was  little  altered  by  either 
the  Reformation  or  the  Renaissance. 

By    the    middle    of   the    seventeenth    century 

1  As  to  the  question  whether  Paul  regarded  the  heathen  gods  as 
Demons,  see  Dods,  Expositor,  fifth  series,  vol.  i.  p.  237  ;  Whitehouse, 
in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  i.  p.  594  ;  Ramsay,  Expositor, 
sixth  series,  iii.  p.  437. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION         105 

a  new  era  began  to  dawn.  A  growing  and 
widening  intercourse  with  foreign  lands  made 
known  to  scholars  many  new  religions.  Alex- 
ander Ross  in  his  Fanseheia^  gave  a  view  of 
all  the  religions  in  the  world,  and  in  it  we 
detect  intolerance  passing  into  enquiry.  This 
knowledge  of  other  faiths  came  to  men  when 
official  Christianity  was  being  keenly  attacked  and 
as  keenly  defended.  The  combatants  had  to 
deal  with  the  fresh  facts.  The  defenders  of 
Christianity  had  been  maintaining  that  God 
gave  to  man,  at  his  creation,  a  divine  revelation. 
Through  Judaism  this  had  attained  its  final  and 
perfect  form  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  which, 
said  they,  we  profess  and  possess.  But  from 
a  very  early  date,  men  began  to  overlay  this 
revelation  with  superstitions,  which  grew  into 
religions,  and  these,  said  they,  are  the  religions 
now  becoming  known.  On  the  other  hand  the 
opponents  of  the  Churches  and  of  dogma  had 
been  maintaining  that  religion  was  an  invention 
of  clerics,  and  was  upheld  by  them  to  retain 
power   over   the   masses.^     These    new   religions 

1  nANSEBEIA:  or,  a  Fie-w  of  all  the  Religiom  in  the  IVorld,  by 
Alexander  Ross,  fourth  edition,  London,  1672.  This  curious  volume 
gives  in  the  form  of  question  and  answer  a  good  idea  of  all  that  was 
then  known  of  the  various  religions. 

2  This  theory  may  be  said  to  be  as  old  as  Polybius  who  '<  regarded 
religion  as  the  device  of  statesmen  to  control  the  masses  by  mystery 
and  terror"  (Polybius  vi.  56,  quoted  by  Dill,  Roman  Society  from 
Nero  to  Marcus  Aurelius,  p.  531). 


io6  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

were,  they  said,  similar  inventions  by  kindred 
priests.  The  former  view  has  held  its  ground  down 
to  quite  a  recent  date.  The  other  theory  that  all 
religions  are  priestly  inventions  was  formulated  by 
Toland,!  modified  by  Picard,^  and  received  its 
finest  and  bitterest  expression  in  the  writings  of 
Voltaire,  whose  detestation  of  priests  was  only 
matched  by  his  hatred  of  fanatics.  As  the 
different  religions  became  better  known,  it  was 
seen  that  the  priest  was  never  the  inventor,  but 
rather  the  preserver  and  modifier  of  religious  rites 
and  ideas,  and  that  to  say  the  priest  invented  religion 
only  raised  the  question  who  invented  the  priest? 

The  promise  of  a  better  theory  appears  in 
Origine  de  tons  les  Cultes  ou  Religion  Universelle^ 
(1795),  in  which  Charles  Dupuis  maintained 
that  all  religions  sprung  from  a  primitive  nature 
worship.  Throughout  the  nineteenth  century 
three  new  factors  began  to  make  their  influence 
felt  on  the  study  of  religions. 

I.  The  conception  that  in  religion  not  the 
outward  rite,  but  the  idea  which  it  embodies, 
is  the  important  thing.  Herder  first  pointed 
this  out  and  indicated  that  the  task  before 

1  J.  Toland,  in  Christianity  not  Mysterious,  1696,  speaks  of  the  Clergy 
as  "  the  sole  contrivers  of  those  inconceivable  or  mysterious  doctrines 
which  I  also  maintain  are  as  advantageous  to  themselves  as  they  are 
prejudicial  to  the  laity." 

2  The  Ceremonies  and  Religious  Customs  of  the  Various  Nations  of  the  Known 
iVorld,  B.  Picard,  Amsterdam,  1723;  London,  1733. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION         107 

scholars  was  to  ascertain  clearly  what  these 
ideas  were,  to  account  for  their  origin  and 
trace  their  development ;  while  Hegel  said 
these  ideas  had  grown,  that  in  their  growth 
an  order  could  be  detected,  and  that  the 
growth  was  upwards,  towards  truth.^ 

2.  The  spirit  of  tolerance  leading  men  like 
Carlyle^  and  Maurice^  to  endeavour  to 
understand  religions  other  than  their  own, 
and  to  see  and  state  the  truths  contained  in 
them. 

3.  Research,  including  enquiry  into  the  religion  of 
primitive  man,  excavations  in  Egypt  and  other 
lands,  the  study  of  the  religions  of  savages, 
the  critical  examination  of  various  religions 
like  those  of  India,  and  the  investigations  of 
psychologists  into  the  religious  nature  of 
man. 

The  result  of  these  and  other  influences  are 
seen  in  innumerable  volumes  dealing  with  the 
different  departments  of  the  science  of  religion,  in 
the  foundation  of  chairs  for  its  study  in  uni- 
versities so  far  apart  as  those  of  Manchester  and 

1  Spinoza,  in  his  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus  (1670),  treats  Chris- 
tianity as  a  development  of  the  leading  ideas  of  Judaism.  Something 
like  an  effort  to  trace  a  line  of  development  is  seen  in  Lessing's  Educa- 
tion of  the  Human  Race  (1780),  though  Lessing  like  Spinoza,  deals  only 
with  Judaism  and  Christianity. 

2  Thomas  Carlyle,  On  Heroes  and  Hero-Worship  (1840). 

3  F.  D.  Maurice,  The  Religions  of  the  World  {\%6^€). 


io8  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Tokio,  and  in  the  strenuous  endeavour  of  scholars 
to  understand  and  trace  the  history  of  the  develop- 
ment of  religion. 

II.  A  Sketch  of  the  Evolution  of  Religion 

The  new  facts  being  daily  discovered,  the  new 
arrangements  and  classifications  of  these  being 
suggested,  the  new  theories  being  proclaimed,  the 
extent  of  the  material  to  be  assimilated,  the 
intricacy  and  delicacy  of  the  problems,  the  sacred- 
ness  of  the  subject,  touching,  as  it  does,  what  is 
highest  in  man  and  holiest  in  God,  the  personal 
interests  involved,  the  prejudices  which  have  to  be 
overcome  by  thinkers  however  "  free,"  all  conspire  b 
to  make  an  earnest  man  learn  carefully,  and  speak  I 
guardedly  on  this  the  youngest  and  highest  of/\ 
the  sciences.  Still  if  religion  has  developed  it 
must  have  grown  in  some  way,  and  I  venture 
to  endeavour  to  indicate  the  way  in  which  it 
appears  most  likely  that  religion  has  from  low 
beginnings  moved  upwards  and  onwards. 

In  every  individual,  religion  begins  as  an  inherit- 
ance. A  child  learns  the  language  its  parents 
speak,  and  accepts  the  religion  they  profess. 
Experience  causes  each  generation  to  modify, 
more  or  less,  the  inherited  faith,  the  forms  which 
embody  it,  and  the  worship  which  expresses  it. 
The  religion  thus  inherited  and  modified,  the  child 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  109 

passes  on  to  his  descendants,  who  in  turn  change 
it  and  transmit  the  product  to  their  descendants. 

What  is  true  of  the  individual  is  true  of  the 
race.  Inheritance,  modification,  and  survival  were 
and  are  the  means  which  preserve,  purify,  and 
transmit  religion.  Through  the  action  of  the 
first,  religion  ever  lives.  Through  the  second  it 
becomes  less  superstitious,  more  rational,  more 
helpful,  because  it  trains  the  best  men  to  receive 
the  "something  higher  still"  which  it  has  ever  to 
offer  them.  Attention  to  the  third  law  enables  us 
to  trace  the  upward  progress  of  religion.  No  story 
can  compare  in  interest  with  that  which  tells  how 
through  dim  dawnings  of  conscience,  and  feeble 
feelings  after  something  above  and  beyond,  the 
Father  came  into  direct  touch  with  men,  how  to 
selected  souls  and  through  them  to  others.  He 
gradually  disclosed  more  and  more  of  His  character, 
till  finally  He  could  and  did  reveal  Himself  in  His 
Son.    The  story  moves  through  four  great  divisions. 

The  first  opens  by  showing  us  man  in  his  infancy, 
appearing  like  the  babe,  more  animal  than  spiritual 
In  primitive  man  reason,  culture,  morality,  and 
religion  are^  but  are  primitive,  in  posse  because  in 
esse.  Man  is  by  nature  religious. ^  Religion  is 
not  a  thing  which  he  discovered  or  invented,  not 

1  "  So  far  as  I  can  judge  from  the  immense  mass  of  accessible  evidence, 
we  have  to  admit  that  the  belief  in  spiritual  beings  appears  among  all 
low  races  with  whom  we  have  attained  a  thoroughly  intimate  acquaint- 
ance."    Tylor,  Primitive  Culture:    Animism, 


no  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

even  something  which  he  came  gradually  to 
possess,  but  something  which  from  the  time  he 
was  man  possessed  him  :  it  is  inherent  and  natural. 
In  primitive  man  we  see  religion  not  beginning,  but 
beginning  to  grow.  How  religious  feeling  was 
first  stirred  into  conscious  life,  and  began  to 
express  itself  in  what  might  be  called  worship, 
we  can  only  dimly  guess,  because  all  that  ex- 
perience lies  beyond  the  horizon  of  history,  for 
as  Lang  says,  *'The  origin  of  a  belief  in  God  is 
beyond  the  ken  of  history  and  speculation." 
Investigators  who  believe  with  Rousseau  that 
man's  advance  began  by  his  "  animating  all  things 
whose  action  he  felt "  have  pictured  primitive  man 
as  living  in  little  herds,^  a  being  highly  neurotic,^ 
nervously  alive  to  all  things  round  him.  Motion 
in  any  form  attracted  his  attention,  the  motion  of 
his  fellows,  of  the  beasts,  of  the  river,  the  trees, 
the  winds,  and  the  planets.  Motion  he  only  knew 
as  the  result  of  will,  his  motion  of  his  will,  their 
motion  of  their  will.  Hence  there  was  in  every- 
thing, even  in  things  Joe  did  not  see  actually 
moving,  a  spirit  like  his  own.  This  thought  was 
confirmed  by  his  dreams,  which  taught  him  that 
he  had  a  spirit  able  to  leave  the  body,  hold 
intercourse  (as  he  thought)  with  other  spirits,  and 
then    return  to    the    body.^ 

1  Bagehot's  phrase  is  "  Co-operative  groups." 

2  Bagehot,  Physics  and  Politics,  p.   55. 

3  «'The  dreams  of  men  peopled  heaven  with  gods."     Lucr.  Book  V. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  iii 

The  occurrence  of  the  unexpected,  the  irregular, 
the  opposite  of  what  had  been  planned,  the 
mysterious,  and  the  unaccountable,  impressed  men 
with  the  idea  that  these  spirits  had  superhuman 
power,  and  that  in  a  sense  they  were  extranatural 
beings.  Naturally  a  desire  arose  in  the  different 
groups  of  men  to  get  into  friendly  relations  with 
such  very  desirable  allies.^  But  how  was  this  to 
be  done  ?  Take  the  case  of  animals.  Men  could 
not  help  observing  that  animals,^  like  themselves, 
were  in  groups.  Each  member  of  such  a  group 
was  animated  by  a  spirit  for  "  the  sense  of  an 
absolute  psychical  distinction  between  man  and 
beast,  so  prevalent  in  the  civilised  world,  is  hardly 
to  be  found  among  the  lower  races. ^  The  human 
herd  was  (or  was  believed  to  be)  of  one  blood  and 
held  together  by  this  blood  tie.  Primitive  man 
imagined  that  a  group  of  animals  were  held  together 
by  a  similar  blood  connection.  A  stranger  was 
admitted  into  a  human  group  by  the  blood  of  a 
representative  of  the  group  being  put  on  or  into 
him.  So  a  representative  of  an  animal  group, 
with  whom  alliance  was  desired,  was  chosen  as 
the  representative  of  a  group  of  spirits,  and  on  it 
was  poured  the  blood  of  one  of  the  human  herd, 
so  that  all  the  animals  became  members  of  the 
human    herd,    and  vice   versa ;    the    two   groups 

1  "Fear  first  made  the  gods."     Petronius,  c.  xiii. 

2  This  is  also  true  of  plants. 

*  Tyler,  Primitive  Culture:   Animism,  pp.  469,  500. 


112  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

became  one,  and  man  gained  as  friends  a  group 
of  spirits.  This  group  of  friendly  spirits  could  be 
angered  or  estranged,  and  then,  as  well  as  at 
other  special  times,  the  blood  covenant  had  to 
be  renewed,  by  e.g.  the  killing,  the  mingling  of  the 
blood,  and  the  eating  of  a  member  either  of  the 
human  or  the  animal  group.  Here  is  the  beginning 
of  sacrifice  and  of  worship.  At  first  these  spirits 
were  thought  of  as  confined  to  their  own  thing, 
or  to  departments  of  nature,  and  they  had  only 
general  names,  generic  attributes,  no  life  history, 
and  were  worshipped  mainly  by  magical  rites. 
When  the  groups  grew  into  clans  these  totem 
spirits  became  the  spirits  of  the  clan.  Gradually 
the  spirits  which  in  experience  were  found  to  be 
least  powerful,  were  less  and  less  reverenced,  and 
the  more  powerful  obtained  individual  names, 
personal  attributes,  finally  a  life  history,  with 
domains  more  clearly  defined,  and  there  came  into 
the  worship  elements  of  propitiation  :  these  spirits 
became  gods.  Only  one  out  of  many  groups  of 
spirits  had  been  admitted  into  a  human  group, 
those  left  unattached  were  hostile,  so  while  the 
friendly  spirits  became  gods,  the  unfriendly  rather 
acquired  the  character  of  demons.  In  course  of 
time  other  ideas  were  developed  from  this  con- 
ception of  spirits.  When  e.g.  a  person  died  there 
was  left  a  mouldering  body  and  a  homeless  spirit. 
Fear  or  love  led  to  the  offering  of  food  to  the 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  113 

spirit,  and  burial  to  the  dead,  and  hence  arose 
the  worship  of  ancestors  and  conceptions  of  a  life 
beyond  death.^  Each  of  the  heavenly  bodies  was 
also  the  abode  of  a  spirit,  and  to  all  these  adoration 
was  also  given.  Certain  things  were  thought  of  as 
sacred  because  connected  with  the  spirits.  Invol- 
untary fasting,  the  solitude  and  danger  of  the 
time,  ceaseless  watchfulness,  restless  expectancy, 
and  actual  occurrences  intensified  devotion  to  these 
spirits  in  certain  men  who  thus  gradually  became, 
in  such  matters,  the  religious  leaders  of  the  group 
in  which  they  lived  —  priests.  Similarly  arose 
the  primitive  ideas  of  sacred  places,  sanctuaries ; 
sacred  clothes,  still  surviving  in  the  idea  of  a 
Sunday  coat  and  hat;  sacred  times  from  which 
we  have  our  holidays  and  holy  days ;  forbidden 
acts  from  which  have  been  evolved  many  of 
our  social  customs,  conceptions  of  crime,  and 
criminal  jurisprudence ;  certain  fit  or  unfit  states 
of  approaching  the  spirits,  whence  sprang  our 
conceptions  of  holiness;  and  certain  modes  of 
communicating  with  the  spirits,  from  which  have 
grown  gifts,  prayer,  and  praise. 

Different  groups  of  men  may  have  gone  through 
experiences  different  from  these,  or  similar  ex- 
periences in  a  different  order,  but  the  rough 
sketch  just  given  makes  it  possible  for  us  to  see, 

^  "Religion  began  when  the  living  thought  seriously  of  the  dead," 
Herbert  Spencer. 
H 


114  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

how  in  these  or  other  ways,  the  earlier  generations 
of  men  received  a  training  suited  to  their  capacity, 
and  were  by  it  prepared  for  higher  teaching,  for 
as  some    one  has  said,   "  In  every  age  God  took 
man  as  he  was,  to  make  him  better  than  he  was." 
In  some  such  ways  there  was  awakened  in  man  a 
consciousness    of   the    divine ;    of  the    divine    as 
above,    distinct    from,    and    yet    near    him;     as 
powerful  to  help    or   hinder;   and  as   capable  of 
anger,  but  anger  that  could  be  appeased.     Such 
truths  engraven  on  the  mind  of  the  race  at  the 
most  impressionable  age,  entered  deeply  into  its 
very  lifeblood,  and  their  influence  has  never  faded. 
The   effort   to    understand    them,   to   give   better 
answers    to    the    questions    they   raise,    to    find 
adequate  expression  for  the  thoughts  they  stirred, 
to  solve  the  difficulties  they  start,  and  to  understand 
better  the  being  or  beings  of  which  they  spoke, 
have  been  the  moving  forces  which  led  men  to  see 
truth  more  clearly,  to  long  for  further  and  further 
light,    to  welcome   it  when  it  came,  and  thus  to 
move  forward  to  the  goal.     It  is  thus  evident  that 
during  these  ages  "  God  left  not  Himself  without 
witness."     Though  His  children  were  but  in  their 
infancy  the  Father  was  with  them,  communicating 
to  them,  as  they  were  fit  to  receive,  the  elements  of 
religious  truth,  which  became  the  preparation  for  and 
the  foundation  of  the  great  Racial  Religions.    These 
form  the  subject  of  the  next  chapter  in  the  story. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  115 

The  second  division  describes  how  groups  of 
men  began  to  hive  off  from  the  parent  home  into 
the  regions  beyond.  The  new  environment  in 
which  each  group  found  itself,  told  upon  its  life. 
The  common  inheritance  gradually  acquired  in 
each  distinct  and  separate  characteristics.  Mankind 
passed  into  distinct  races,  the  features  approximated 
to  racial  types,  speech  evolved  into  languages, 
while  in  religion  old  beliefs  and  practises  assumed 
other  forms,  new  conceptions  arose,  old  ones 
faded,  and  thus  religion  began  to  pass  into  distinct 
types  of  religion.  Religions  are  mortal,  but 
religion  never  dies.  To  trace  the  history  of  all 
these  racial  religions,  such  as  the  Aryan,  Turanian, 
etc.,  would  be  impossible.  Let  us  select  one 
which  is  for  us  of  peculiar  interest,  the  Semitic. 
The  earliest  home  of  the  Semites  ^  known  to  us 
was  Arabia,  and  there  the  environment  suggested 
higher  thoughts  on  religion.^  Ruskin,^  in  a 
discussion  on  the  relation  of  climate  and  land  to 
art  speaks  of  ^'the  sand  lands,  including  the  desert, 
and  dry  rock  plains  as  inhabited  generally  by  a 
nomad  population,  capable  of  high  mental  cultiva- 
tion, and  of  solemn  monumental  or  religious  art, 

1  For  their  distinctive  racial  features  see  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,  vol.  V.  p.  72  ;  Sayce's  Races  of  the  Old  Testament ;  Charles  M. 
Doughty's  Travels  in  Arabia  Deserta, 

2  See  such  books  as  The  Religion  of  the  Semites,  W.  Robertson 
Smith  ;  Sketches  from  Eastern  History,  Theodor  Noldeke  ;  A  Sketch  of 
Semitic  Origins,  G.  A.  Barton  ;  M'Curdy  in  H.  D.  B.,  v.  p.  83. 

*  Modern  Painters,  v.  p.  138. 


ii6  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

but  not   of  art  in  which  pleasurableness  forms  a 

large    element."      Historical   research   has    shown 

that   this    generalisation    touching    art    may    be 

extended   to   life.     The    early    Semites    in    their 

desert    home    acquired    a    seriousness    that    was 

almost  sombre,   and  life  became   touched  with  a 

grave  thoughtfulness  distinct  from  the  indifference 

or  the  joyous  carelessness  of  other  races.     The 

intense    solitude    and    loneliness    of    the    desert 

intensified    the    neurotic    temperament,    and    the 

Semite  became    alive  to  every  movement,  sound, 

and    sight   which    broke    the    monotony   of   the 

desert.     They  felt,  as  all  who  have  lived  in  the 

desert  have    felt,  the   overmastering    influence  of 

what   we    call    physical    forces,    but    what    they 

thought  of  as  the  gods  who  lived  in  these,   and 

made   them  instruments    for   accomplishing    their 

will.     These  rude  children  of  the  desert  believed 

strongly  in  the  direct  action  of  these  deities,  and 

so  constantly  appealed  to  them  for  help  to  attain 

desired  good,  or  avert  dreaded  evil.     The  power 

of    the    deities,    thus    exhibited,    deepened    the 

reverence    of    the    devotees,    strengthened    their 

religiousness,   gave  a    higher    seriousness   to    life, 

and    made    more    awful    and    more    distant    the 

ancestral  gods.      The  gods  were   not   considered 

either   as    omnipotent    or    eternal.     They    were 

hmited  by  Magic,    by  the  rights  of  each  other, 

and  by   their  natures,  for  they  were   subject  to 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  117 

death,  and  death  meant  separation  from  this 
world  and  control  over  the  men  and  things  in  it. 
The  displays  of  power  by  the  gods,  like  similar 
displays  by  men  caused  comparisons  to  be  made 
between  the  gods,  which  resulted  in  certain 
deities  being  thought  of  as  stronger  than  others. 
The  feeling  also  that  certain  deities  were  specially 
helpful  in  certain  spheres  and  in  certain  directions 
would  also  arise.  Circumstances  may  indeed 
have  forced  men  to  compare  the  gods  ethically, 
as  beings  having  each  a  moral  character,  and  the 
god  who  seemed  to  them  to  occupy  the  highest 
place  morally  would  win  the  allegiance  of  the 
higher  type  of  men.  Hence  the  stronger,  the 
more  helpful,  the  more  moral  deities  gradually 
won  the  allegiance  of  increasing  numbers,  whose 
intenser  faith  again  tended  to  exalt  their  god 
above  the  others.^  In  all  the  national  cults  which 
sprung  from  the  Semitic  religion,  as  those  of  the 
Babylonians,  Assyrians,  etc.,  this  tendency  was 
exhibited  sometimes  in  Kathenotheism  (the  con- 
ception of  one  God  behind  various  forms)  ;  in 
Henotheism  (the  supremacy  of  one  among  many 
gods)  ;  and  even  in  a  Monolatry  (the  worship  of  one 
god  with  the  belief  in  many),  so  pronounced  as 
sometimes  to  be  mistaken  for  Monotheism. ^ 

1  This  tendency  to  Monotheism  is  well  exhibited  in  Chaps.  II.  and 
III.  of  MaccuUoch's  Comparative  Theology. 

2  The  tendency  is  seen  in  the  exaltation  of  Bel  in  Babylon,  Asshur 


ii8  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

The  extent  and  salubrity  of  Arabia  ^  made  it  the 
cradle,  as  its  sterility  prevented  it  becoming  the 
home,  of  a  vast  population.  Scarcity  habitually 
compelled  its  inhabitants  to  pass  into  the  neigh- 
bouring fertile  lands,  sometimes  as  peaceful  settlers, 
sometimes  in  a  torrent  of  humanity  which  nothing 
could  resist.^  Thus  the  Semites,  who  were  never 
an  organised  nation,  but  merely  unorganised  tribes, 
easily  split  into  nations. 

Influences  similar  and  different  operated  on 
the  other  great  races,  and  when  e,g.  the  Aryan 
race  developed  into  nations,  such  as  the  Greeks, 
Romans,  Germans,  etc.,  each  evolved  a  religion  in 
some  respects  similar  and  in  others  very  different 
from  that  of  its  kindred.  But  it  will  tend  to 
clearness  if  we  follow  the  fortune  of  a  branch 
of  the  Semitic  race. 

The  third  division  therefore  concerns  a  section 
of  the  Semites  who  emigrated — sometime  previous 
to  B.C.  4000 — from  Arabia  to  the  lowlands  of 
Mesopotamia,  mingling  there  with'men,*the  Sumero- 

in  Assyria,  and  specially  of  Aten  by  Amen-hetep  IV.  For  this  latter 
see  the  histories  of  Egypt  as  that  of  Budge,  iv.  p.  120.  See  note.  p. 
12  and  p.  16. 

1  See  Flinders  Petrie,  Expositor,  sixth  series,  vol.  xii.  p.  148. 

2  There  was  an  Aramean  exodus  about  b.c.  1500;  the  Nabatean 
expansion  about  b.c.  500;  the  Mahomedan  deluge  about  a.d.  662; 
and  the  more  recent  emigration  of  the  Shammai  and  Anezeh 
clans.  See  L.  B.  Paton's  Early  History  of  Syria  and  Palestine; 
Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  vol.  i.  p.  134,  vol.  v.  p.  73;  Prof. 
G.  A.  Smith  in  the  Quarterly  Statement,  Palestine  Exploration  Fund, 
1906,  p.  74. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  119 

Akkadians,  belonging  to  a  non-Semitic  race.^  A 
great  advance  often  takes  place  when  the  culture 
of  one  race  is  fertilised  by  that  of  another.  The 
rise  of  Greek  civilisation  from  the  mingling  of  the 
Hellenic  Achseans  with  the  primitive  Pelasgi,^ 
the  advent  of  Christianity  into  the  Grasco-Roman 
world,  the  arrival  of  the  scholars  of  Constantinople 
in  Western  Europe  in  the  fifteenth  century,  are 
well-known  examples  of  the  law.  The  culture, 
commonly  called  Babylonian,  springing  from  the 
fusion  of  these  two  races,  was  essentially  Semitic. 
The  petty  tribe,  with  its  chief,  gradually  expanded 
into  a  city-kingdom,  with  its  king  or  priest-king, 
and  each  developed  its  inherited  culture  and 
religion  according  to  its  particular  environment. 
One  of  the  earliest  founded  of  these  cities  was 
Eridu,  and  its  primitive,  or  at  least  one  of  its 
earliest  cults,  was  that  which  centered  round  the 
god  Ea,  the  god  of  wisdom  and  culture,  of 
justice  and  kindness  to  men.  He  had  such  titles 
as  ^'Father,"  "King  of  Righteousness,"  "I  am." 
Ea  became  identified  with  Sin,  the  moon  god,  a 
god  important  to  nomads  like  the  Semites  who 
frequently  travel  by  night.     Ea  in  all  probability 

^This  is  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  scholars  including  Jastrow, 
Hommel,  etc.,  but  a  minority  including  Halevy  contend  that  the  Baby- 
lonian culture  was  entirely  Semitic.  See  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
vol.  V.  p.  536.  M'Curdy  thinks  that  the  Semites  had  as  "  neighbours 
a  race  akin  to  the  Elamites  or  Kassites  "  (Hastings,  as  above,  p.  86). 

2  See  H.  R.  Hall's  Oldest  Civilization  q/  Greece. 


I20  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

is  the  same  as  Aa,  or  Ya  and  identical  with  Ya 
(n;)  the  equivalent  of  Yahveh  (Jehovah). ^  This 
does  not  solve  the  mystery  of  the  origin  of  Jehovah, 
for  its  first  usage  and  primary  sense  are  unknown. 
An  old  form  njn^  used  in  Exodus  iii.  14,  "I  am," 
survived  down  to  the  time  of  Hosea  (i.  9).  But 
apart  from  conjecture,  or  even  the  discovery  of 
the  namie,  it  is  clear  that  Jehovah  was  a  Babylonian 
-deity,  long  before  Israel  as  a  nation  existed.  His 
seat  being  Sinai  it  is  probable  that  originally  he 
was  a  deity  of  a  Semitic  tribe  before  its  departure 
from  the  ancestral  home,  and  before  in  Babylon 
he  had  become  connected  with  Ea.  There  is 
good  reason  for  thinking  that  some  of  his  original 
worshippers  who  remained  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Sinai  are  known  to  us  as  Midianites. 

Through  the  Semites'  settlement  in  Babylon 
a  superior  deity  might  come  to  have  districts  which 
he  claimed  as  peculiarly  his,  yet  retaining  his 
early  official  and  peculiar  residence.  Jehovah  was 
worshipped  at  Ur-Kashdim,  and  Haran,  but  his 
special  seat  was  Sinai.  Though  other  and  inferior 
gods  resided  there,^  it  was  specially  identified  with 
Jehovah, 2  and  known  as  his  mountain  upon  which 

^ See  Margoliouth,  "Hebrew  and  Babylonian  Affinities,"  Contemporary 
Revieiv,  Oct.  1 898.  The  criticisms  of  Mr  Japp  (Some  Heresies  dealt 
•with,  p.  254)  do  not  really  touch  Margoliouth's  position. 

2 The  mountain  of  the  gods:  Exod.  iii.  i;  iv.  27;  xviii.  5;  xxiv. 
12. 

8 See  such  passages  as  Exod.  iii.  19;  Num.  x.  33;  Deut.  xxxiii.  2  ; 
Judges  V.   5  ;  Psalm  Ixviii.  17.     At  a  later  period  when  Jehovah  was 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  1 2 1 

his  glory  could  be  seen  as  devouring  flame.^ 
Jehovah's  land  was,  of  course,  closely  connected  with 
Sinai.  Boundaries  to-day  may  be,  and  often  are, 
purely  artificial  2 ;  in  early  times  they  were  and  had 
to  be  great  natural  features.  From  Sinai,  Jehovah's 
land,  protected  and  defined  by  the  mountains  towards 
the  south,  stretched  northwards  between  a  desert 
of  sea  and  a  desert  of  sand,  till  it  struck  the 
Lebanons.  But  though  Palestine  belonged  to 
Jehovah,  and  should  therefore  be  peopled  by  his 
worshippers,  at  some  time  and  under  circumstances 
of  which  we  are  ignorant,  his  worship  in  it  had 
ceased.  The  connection  had  to  be  renewed.  A 
great  Babylonian  god  always  had  among  his 
worshippers  select  individuals  in  close  touch  with 
himself,  to  whom  he  could  communicate  his  will 
and  desires.  Jehovah,  like  other  deities,  had  his 
"Prophets."  One  of  these  was  a  sheik  named 
Abraham  who  in  accordance  with  the  expressed 
wish  of  Jehovah  emigrated  from  Babylon  to 
Palestine.  In  the  development  of  nearly  all  the 
higher  religion  the  time  comes  when  the  story  of 
the  religion  is  considered  so  valuable  as  to  be  written. 
In  the  time  of  Abraham  the  progress  of  religion 
in  the  line  of  Semitic  and  Babylonian  development 
reached    that    stage,    the    teaching    had   become 

thought  of  as  dwelling  in  the  skies,  he  came  down  upon  Sinai,  Neh. 
ix.  13.     In  Gen.  xxii.  2  etc.,  the  Mount  of  Jehovah  is  clearly  Sinai. 

lExod.  xxir.  15,  17;  Deut.  ix.  15. 

^Bryce,  American  Commonivealth,  p.  416. 


122  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

so    valuable    as    to    be   worth    recording    in    a 
book. 

The  fourth  division  is  a  book,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  which  is  preserved  the  record  of  the 
further  development  of  this  religion.  The 
Abrahamic  offshoot  from  Babylon  developed  into 
a  nation,  the  Hebrews,  unimportant  in  art,  science, 
or  politics,  but  of  unequalled  importance  in  the 
sphere  of  religion.  Like  each  of  the  other 
Semitic  nations,  the  Hebrews  developed  the 
common  religion  along  a  line  peculiarly  its  own. 
Yet  in  Israel  the  advance  from  Kathenotheism 
to  Monolatry  is  marked  by  peculiar  features. 
When  Israel  entered  Palestine  from  the  desert, 
the  tribes  settled  in  districts  each  of  which  had 
its  own  local  Baal.  The  struggles  which  led  to 
the  consolidation  of  the  former  inhabitants  and 
the  invaders  into  one  nation  meant  a  struggle  for 
supremacy  among  the  deities.  From  these 
struggles  Jehovah  emerged  as  the  supreme  god. 
The  conquests  of  David  under  the  banner  of 
Jehovah,  and  the  erection  of  a  magnificent  Temple, 
attracted  the  affection  and  the  patriotism  of  the 
nation  to  Jehovah,  and  Kathenotheism  passed  into 
Monolatry.  In  the  reign  of  Ahab  an  attempt 
to  introduce  the  worship  of  Melkart  of  Zidon,  in 
order  to  make  him  the  supreme  god  in  Israel, 
raised   in   the    mind    of  Elijah  ^    and    others   the 

1  The  taunts  in  i  Kings  xviii.  27  come  from  the  lips  of  a  man  who 
had  ceased  to  believe  in  any  other  God  than  Jehovah. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  123 

question, — Was  there,  or  could  there  be,  any  other 
god  than  Jehovah  ?  In  their  efforts  to  defeat  the 
attempt  on  behalf  of  Melkart  it  became  clear  to 
them  that  Jehovah  was  the  only  god,  and 
Monolatry  began  to  pass  into  Monotheism.  All 
these  prolonged  struggles  made  clearer  and 
clearer  the  character  of  the  various  deities,  made 
clearer  the  character  of  Jehovah,  till  finally  his 
rightness.  His  purity,  His  justice,  and  His  kind- 
ness shone  out  conspicuously  in  holy  splendour. 
Just  at  the  time  when  Israel,  or  at  least  the  higher 
minds  in  Israel,  had  grasped  the  fact  of  the  "  alone- 
ness  "  of  Jehovah,  had  realised  that  besides  Him 
there  was  no  god,  Assyria  awoke  and  bent  her 
genius  to  the  conquest  of  the  Semitic  world.  The 
wars  which  ensued  were  not  mere  political  contests, 
they  were  religious  struggles.  The  armies  were 
led  and  inspired  by  the  presence  of  their  respective 
gods.  Hence  the  victory  of  a  nation  meant  the 
ascendancy  of  its  god.  Assyria  and  Asshur  were 
everywhere  triumphant.  Hamath  and  its  gods, 
the  gods  of  Arpad  and  Sepharvaim,  of  Hena 
and  Ivah  (2  Kings  xviii.  34)  had  perished  with 
their  worshippers.  But  though  Assyria  humbled 
Israel,  Jehovah  triumphed  over  Asshur.  The 
Israelites  realised  that  Jehovah  had  overthrown 
their  state  on  account  of  their  sins,  and  His  use 
of  the  foreign  foe  to  do  this  holy  work  in  their 
highest  interests,  exhibiting  as  it  did  His  world- 


124  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

wide  power,  His  unbending  Tightness,  His  genuine 
love  for  them,  made  them  cling  to  Him  with  a 
more  tenacious  faith.  To  the  conquests  of 
Assyria  succeeded  those  of  Babylon,  of  Persia, 
of  Alexander,  till  the  legions  of  Rome  gave 
humanity  the  Pax  Romana^  and  thus  created  a 
new  world  in  which  religion  had  its  part  to  play. 
The  stronger  and  nobler  faiths  saw  the  new 
situation.  They  began  to  absorb  what  was  of 
value  in  the  meaner  and  weaker  cults  around 
them,  to  develop  their  deeper  and  more  spiritual 
truths,  to  strive  to  attain  to  monotheism,^  and  to 
realise  that  if  they  were  to  survive  they  could  do 
so  only  by  winning  the  devotion  of  men  in  this 
new  world  where  toleration  would  give  victory 
to  that  religion  which  proved  itself  best  fitted  to 
meet  the  deepest  wants  of  the  best  men.  An 
example  or  two  will  make  this  plain. 

The    conquests    scattered    the    Jews.       In    all 
lands,  from  Persia  with  its  Mithraism  to  Britain 

^  "  In  Rome  the  dim  monotheism  of  the  people  turned  to  the 
glorification  of  Jupiter."  (Dill,  Roman  Society  from  Nero  to  Marcus 
Aurelius,  p.  543.)  In  philosophy  the  tendency  is  seen  in  the  works 
of  ^»chylus  and  Plato,  and  in  those  of  the  Cynici,  "probably  the 
purest  monotheists  that  classical  antiquity  produced"  (p.  363).  "The 
initiation  of  Apuleius  in  all  the  mysteries,  the  reverent  visits  of 
ApoUonius  to  every  temple  and  oracle  from  the  Ganges  to  the 
Guadalquivir,  the  matins  of  Alexander  Severus  in  a  chapel  which 
enshrined  the  images  of  Abraham  and  Orpheus,  of  ApoUonius  and 
Christ,"  are  indications  of  the  same  tendency.  Dill,  Roman  Society 
from  Nero  to  Marcus  Aurelius,  p.  388;  and  Dill,  Roman  Society  in  the 
Last  Century  (f  the  Western  Empire,  p.  8. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION 


125 


with  its  Druid  rites,  from  Woden's  shrines 
to  Isis'  sacred  isle,  the  Jew  carried  the  pure 
worship  of  the  one  universal  God  with  its 
energy  for  rightness,  its  uplifting  purity,  and 
its  new  and  winsome  note  of  tenderness.  And 
then  there  arose  in  Judaism  the  religion  of  Jesus. 
His  followers,  recognising  Jesus  as  God,  saw  in 
His  life  the  perfect  revelation  of  the  character  of 
the  one  God,  the  universal  Father,  in  the  unique- 
ness of  its  rightness,  the  splendour  of  its  purity, 
and  the  beneficence  of  its  love.  The  new  religion, 
absorbing  all  that  was  of  permanent  value  in 
Judaism,  sloughed  off  all  local  and  racial  limitations, 
and  proclaimed  itself  the  perfect  religion  for  all 
men,  in  all  ages,  in  all  climes,  bringing  to  men  a 
knowledge  of  the  One  God  which  satisfied  and 
stimulated  their  highest  desires  and  holiest 
ambitions.  This  newest  yet  oldest  religion  had 
rivals  not  unworthy  of  its  opposition.  The 
religion  of  Egypt,  gathering  up  into  itself  all  that 
was  best  in  the  various  cults  in  the  land  of  the 
Nile,  training  itself  to  think  by  its  intercourse 
with  foreigners,  casting  aside  most  of  the  degrada- 
tions of  its  zoolatry,  developed  a  mysticism,  a 
spiritual  energy,  a  belief  in  immortality,  which, 
embodied  in  an  attractive  ritual,  made  it  acceptable 
to  earnest  souls,  and  carried  the  worship  of  Isis, 
with  its  matins  and  vespers,  as  far  as  the  dales 
of  Yorkshire. 


126  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

The  change  is  even  more  clearly  seen  in 
Mithraism.  It  developed  certain  moral  and 
spiritual  principles,  which  had  long  been  en- 
shrined in  its  teaching,  into  a  doctrine  of 
mediatorial  sympathy  and  a  scheme  of  sacra- 
mental mystery,  and  these  won  for  it  the 
enthusiastic  devotion  of  a  large  section  of  the 
Roman  world.  Gradually  Mithraism  and  the 
worship  of  Isis  realised  how  much  they  had  in 
common  with  each  other,  with  the  worship  of 
Magna  Mater,  and  with  the  old  Roman  religion, 
which  expressed  itself  in  the  apotheosis  of  the 
emperor.  The  syncretism  culminated  in  the 
heliolatry  of  Julian,  "which  swept  all  the  great 
worships  of  strong  vitality  into  its  system, 
softened  their  differences,  and  accentuated  their 
similarities."  1  This  syncretism  was  not  only 
induced  by  sympathy,  it  was  intensified  by  the 
determined  advance  of  the  religion  of  Jesus. 
The  fusion  of  religions  under  Rome  finally 
brought  this  about,  that  practically  two  religions 
faced  each  other,  the  religion  of  Jesus,  which  had 
gathered  up  into  itself  all  that  was  truly  valuable 
in  the  past  which  it  represented ;  and  the  cult  of 
the  Emperor  Julian,  which  had  also  fused  all  that 
was  good  and  worthy  in  the  religions  of  Greece, 
Rome,  and  the  older  cults  of  the  Egyptians  and 
the  later   Semitic  world.     The    contest   between 

1  Dill,  Roman  Society  from  Nero  to  Marcus  Aurelius,  p.  556. 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  127 

the  religion  of  Jesus  and  that  represented  by 
Julian  had  its  issue  marked  by  the  words  of  the 
dying  Emperor,  ^'O  Galilean,  Thou  has  conquered." 
To  the  world  of  the  age  following  that  of  the 
Apostate,  an  age  which  knew  nothing  of  the 
religions  of  the  Further  East,  an  age  preceding 
the  birth  of  Mahomet,  there  was  but  one  religion, 
the  religion  of  Jesus. 

III.  The  Relation  of  the  Religion  of  Jesus 
TO  Religion 

The  development  of  religion  which  I  have  thus 
very  inadequately  and  imperfectly  summarised 
proceeded  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  laws 
of  human  progress,  and  its  trend  was  on  the  whole 
upwards.  The  progress  of  religion  coincides  in 
many  respects  with  the  progress  of  civilisation. 
That  progress  has  been  in  no  respect  uniform. 
Some  races  have  moved  onward  and  then  sunk 
back  ;  some  have  reached  a  level  a  little  higher 
than  savagery  and  then  became  stationary ;  other 
races,  like  the  Chinese,  developed  a  very  high  state 
of  civilisation  which  became  a  rigid  system,  pre- 
venting all  further  progress;  while  the  main 
movement  of  civilisation  has  gone  steadily  on  and 
at  last  embodied  itself  in  the  nations  of  Western 
Europe,  whose  high  state  of  civilisation  is  but  the 
prelude  and  the  promise  of  one  still  higher.     So 


128  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

we  find  religion  at  all  levels,  so  low  as  scarcely  to 
exist,  as  in  Australia^  and  the  islands  of  Torres 
Straits ;  ^  higher  still,  as  in  that  of  ancient  Egypt ; 
higher  still,  but  stagnant,  as  in  China;  but  the  main 
current  has  flowed  onwards  and  upwards  from  the 
lowest  beginnings,  through  the  religion  of  the 
Semites,  of  Babylonia,  through  Judaism,  and  finally 
comes  to  full  fruition  in  the  religion  of  Jesus. 
This  is  no  new  conception,  for  Augustine  has  well 
said,  ''That  which  is  now  called  the  Christian 
religion  existed  among  the  ancients,  and  in  fact 
was  with  the  human  race  from  the  beginning.'* 
Why  is  this  called  the  main  current?  It  might 
be  said  in  reply,  just  for  the  same  reason  as  that 
is  called  the  main  current  of  civilisation  which 
flowed  through  the  peoples  of  Babylonia,  Phoenicia, 
Crete,  Greece,  and  Rome,  till  it  takes  shape  in  the 
culture  of  Western  Europe.  But  it  deserves  the 
name  for  weightier  reasons. 

I.  Because  along  this  line  the  highest  results 
have  been  reached.  Among  religions  there  ever 
has  been  and  there  is  now  a  struggle  for  existence, 
and  that  which  survives  is  that  which  best  meets 
the  best  thoughts  of  the  best  men.     The  best 

1  The  Native  Tribes  of  Central  Australia,  B.  Spencer  and  E.  J. 
Gillon. 

2  In  Anthropdogical  Essays  presented  to  Edivard  Burntt  Tylor  (1907), 
Prof.  A.  C.  Haddon  says  (p.  188),  "  Unless  the  heroes  of  the 
cults  be  regarded  as  gods,  I  think  it  can  be  definitely  stated  that  the 
Torres  Straits  islanders  had  no  deities,  and  certainly  they  had  no 
conception  of  a  Supreme  God." 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  129 

religion,  roughly  speaking,  is  that  which  makes 
the  best  men,  which  by  restraining  the  passions 
and  appetites  of  the  body,  vitalising  the  mind, 
moralising  the  life,  lifting  the  soul  into  tender 
communion  with  God,  makes  a  noble  man.  No 
religion  has  done  this  so  effectively  as  the  religion 
of  Jesus ;  and  when  men  professing  this  religion 
have  failed  to  live  up  to  its  high  standard,  it  is  not 
because  the  religion  was  not  sufficient  for  these 
things,  but  because  they  have  not  been  loyal  to  its 
greatness. 

2.  The  religion  of  Jesus  is  worthy  to  be  called 
"  The  Religion "  because  it  has  been  able  to 
assimilate  all  that  was  good  in  all  other  faiths. 
Assimilation  means  taking  up  into  the  system  that 
which  helps  on  its  higher  development,  and  reject- 
ing that  which  hinders  it.  Often  this  is  one  act 
and  not  two,  for  the  helpful  and  the  hurtful  may 
be  so  much  one  that  all  must  be  taken,  and 
gradually  the  evil  expelled  and  the  good  absorbed. 
We  see  this  in  the  religion  of  Jesus  as  we  see  it 
in  no  other  religion.  The  ancient  Babylonian 
religion  seems  to  have  gathered  up  and  to  a 
certain  extent  spiritualised  all  that  was  of  worth 
in  the  older  and  ruder  faiths  which  preceded  it  in 
an  undiscovered  past.  What  was  best  in  it  was 
incorporated  in  the  religion  of  the  primitive 
Hebrews.  Their  religion  again  absorbed  all  that 
was  good  in  the  religion  as  well  as  the  culture  of 
I 


I30  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

the  Canaanites,  of  the  later   Babylonians    during 
the  Exile,  and  of  the  earlier  Persians  in  the  period 
following  the  Exile.     All  these  have  been  taken 
up  into  and  made  parts  of  the  religion  of  Jesus. 
When  at  a  later  time  the  religion  of  Jesus  met  all 
that   was    good    in    the    other    religions    in    the 
syncretic  creed  of  Julian,  that  too  it  did  not  reject 
but    absorbed.     This    absorption,    history    shows, 
was    to   a    considerable    extent  an  absorption   of 
elements    good   and    bad,    and    the    task    of   the 
Reformation  and  of  that  great  but  silent  revolution 
in  the  midst  of  which   we   are  living   is  to  dis- 
tinguish and  separate  out  from  official  Christianity 
in  its  many  forms   all   those   elements  which  are 
alien  to  the  simple  religion  of  Jesus,  which  hinder 
its  advance,  and    prevent    men    from    seeing   the 
splendour  of  its  glory.     Even  as  it  is,  the  religion 
of  Jesus  is  exercising   the   most   uplifting  power 
over  the   minds   and    hearts   of  the   most  highly 
civilised  races  the  world  has  known.     It  has  set  its 
heart,  as  no  other  faith  has,  on  the  winning  of  the 
world.     The  attempt  to  win  all  kinds  of  men,  in 
all   stages  of  progress,   is  a  new  task  which  the 
religion  of  Jesus  is  just  beginning  to  learn  how  to 
tackle,   and   the  deeper  knowledge   which   comes 
from  nobly  trying  will  equip  its  workers  all  the 
better    for    the    task.       One    great    truth    the 
emissaries  of  Jesus  are  learning  is  that,  like  their 
Master,  they  come  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil,  to 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  131 

take  every  good  element  out  of  the  ancient  faiths 
or  the  degraded  cults  they  meet,  and  bring  it  in  a 
higher  form  to  bear  more  strongly  on  the  lives  of 
those  whom  they  try  to  win  for  their  Lord. 

3.  The  study  of  the  various  religions  shows  us 
that  certain  great  ideas,  as  the  conception  of  the 
fljvinp  of  sin,  of  the  god  dying  for  man,  of  the 
god  becoming  man,  of  god  and  man  living  in  com- 
munion  witFeaclTother,  exist  in  nearly  all  religions 
worthy  of  the  name.  This  appearing  of  such 
ideas  in  a  hundred  varying  forms  shows  that 
they  are  fundamental,  and  express  desires  which 
are  universal  and  inseparable  from  man.  The 
religion  which  carries  them  to  the  highest  levels, 
so  as  to  cause  them  to  work  most  powerfully  for 
the  elevation  of  men,  is  surely  the  highest 
type  of  religion.  In  tracing  the  main  current  we 
see  these  being  refined,  made  more  spiritual,  more 
ethical,  and  more  powerful,  each  stage  in  such 
development  preparing  for  one  still  higher.  ^*The 
religions  of  the  world  are  the  manifestation  of  the 
religion  of  the  world." 

4.  These  considerations  lead  us  on  to  another. 
Just  as  our  scientists  have  been  led  from  the  order, 
the  beauty,  the  slow,  steady,  onward  movement  we 
call  evolution  to  believe  that  behind  and  through 
all  this  movement  there  is  a  mind  which  in  it  dis- 
closes something  of  itself,  so  when  we  trace  the 
development  of  religion,  trace  it  especially  along 


132  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

the  main  line,  we  see  that  behind  this  development 
there  must  be  mind, — may  we  not  say  the  same 
mind? — revealing  in  this  wondrous  evolution  its 
character,  itself.  That  revelation  is  the  revelation 
of  God. 

Such   a    conception  of  religion    and    revelation 
banishes   from    the  study   of  religion  all    that  is 
implied    by    such    words    as    peculiar,    particular, 
divine,     miraculous,     supernatural.       It     is     quite 
possible  that  at  the  end  of  such  a  study  certain 
facts  (such  as  for  example  the  nature  of  Jesus) 
may  stand    out  as   things    for  which    we    cannot 
account   by  any  natural  process,  by  any  kind  of 
working  of  cause  and  effect.     If  so,  then  all  lovers 
of  truth  will  just  have  to  admit  that  the  origin,  the 
cause    of   this    is    not    natural    but    extra-natural. 
The  study  itself  must,  however,  be  along  natural 
lines.      And  here  we   must  not  forget  the  great 
truths  modern  science  has  taught  us.     God  works 
in   and    through   the  natural ;   the    divine  is   the 
natural.     Our   fathers   thought   of  the    world  as 
divinely  made,  because   to  them  it  was  the  out- 
come of  definite  creative  acts.     We  know  it  to  be 
the  work  of  God  because  we  have  come  to  see 
how  it  was  slowly  evolved  through  the  operation 
of  natural  laws  and  forces.     Our  fathers  thought 
of  man  as  made  by  God  because  they  conceived  of 
him  as   called  into  existence   by  a  special  act  of 
God;  we   have  learned  how  great,  how  godlike 


COMPARATIVE  RELIGION  133 

man  is,  by  learning  how  he  came  to  be  what  he  is 
by  a  long  and  slow  development.  Some  men 
continue  to  think  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  as 
divinely  true  because  it  has  in  it  something  excep- 
tional, extra-natural.  Others  more  truly  believe 
that  the  religion  of  Jesus  is  the  revelation  of  God 
because  it  has  been  evolved  by  a  process,  the 
majesty,  the  mystery,  the  divineness  of  which  is 
seen  in  its  naturalness.  It  is  the  light  of  the 
world.  The  joy  of  those  who  know  it  is  to 
perfect  it. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  AND  UN- 
DIVIDED TRINITY,  by  the  Rev.  PROFESSOR 
COOPER,  D.D.,  Glasgow. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  AND 
UNDIVIDED  TRINITY 

There  is  no  subject  of  such  transcendent  or 
of  such  practical  importance  as  the  Nature  of 
Almighty  God.  The  law  of  faith  is  the 
law  of  worship :  it  is  also  the  law  of  daily- 
conduct : — 

"  Grant  us,  this  and  every  day, 
To  live  more  nearly  as  we  pray/* 

Creed  and  conduct,  we  all  admit,  should  go  together. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  they  do  go  together,  and  that 
much  more  closely  than  is  nowadays  very  commonly 
supposed.  Every  one  of  the  great  religions  of 
the  world  has  produced,  and  does  produce,  among 
its  followers  a  distinct  type  of  character;  and 
within  the  bounds  of  Christendom  the  same 
thing  may  be  observed.  Omit  one  article  of  the 
Christian  creed,  and  immediately  the  moral  effect 
becomes  visible ;  nay,  the  mere  emphasising,  or 
again  the  putting  into  the  background,  of  any  of 
the  main  doctrines  or  precepts  of  the  Gospel  is  not 
long  in  bearing  practical  fruit.  How  much  more, 
then,   when   it   is   the  main  doctrine  of  all,    the 

»37 


138  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

nature  of  the  God  we  are  to  worship,  which  is 
in  question. 

We  Christians  profess  to  have  received  a  revela- 
tion on  the  subject  from  God  Himself.  We  are 
not  in  the  position  of  inquirers,  who  have  to  ask 
either  Is  there  a  God?  or  What  is  His  Name? 
or  What  symbol  shall  set  forth  His  Nature  ?  We 
are  disciples,  the  disciples  of  One  Who  "hath 
declared  Him  "  :  Who  was  competent  to  do  so, 
alike  by  relationship  to  Him  and  loving  intimacy 
with  Him.  As  St  John  says,  "  No  man  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time :  the  Only  Begotten  God,  which 
was  in  the  Bosom  of  the  Father,  He  hath  de- 
clared Him"  (St  John  i.    18,  R.V.  Margin). 

It  is  true,  I  am  aware,  that  the  first  object  of 
belief  which  our  Blessed  Lord  presented  to  His 
disciples  was  Himself;  that  His  question  alike 
to  friends  and  foes  was,  ''Who  say  ye  that  I 
am?"  (St  Matt.  xvi.  15).  "What  think  ye  of 
the  Christ,  Whose  Son  is  He  ? "  (St  Matt.  xxii. 
42).  But  it  is  impossible  to  look  at  Christ,  and 
still  more  impossible  to  listen  to  Him,  without 
being  taught  by  Him  of  two  other  Divine  Persons, 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Of  the 
Father  He  was  always  speaking.  I  need  quote 
only  a  single  text,  ''All  things  have  been  delivered 
to  Me  of  My  Father  ;  and  no  one  knoweth  the 
Son  save  the  Father;  neither  doth  any  one 
know   the    Father    save    the    Son,    and   he    to 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     139 

whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  Him"  (St 
Matt.  xi.  27)  ;  while  the  great  promise  of 
Christ,  the  theme  of  His  last  discourse  before 
His  Passion  with  His  disciples,  is  that  He 
will  give  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  He  describes 
in  the  plainest  terms  as  a  Person,  Omniscient, 
Almighty,  All-Holy,  the  very  Spirit  of  God 
the  Father  (St  John  xiv.-xvi.).  The  remark 
of  Bishop  Pearson  that  the  very  title  "■  Christ  " 
implies  (i)  an  Anointer,  (2)  a  Person  Anointed, 
and  (3)  an  Anointing,  may  have  the  air  of  mere 
verbal  ingenuity;  in  reality  it  is  all  too  small 
to  set  forth  the  fulness  of  the  fact  that  our 
Lord,  as  we  see  Him  in  the  Gospels,  is  ever, 
and  always,  the  witness  not  to  Himself  alone, 
but  also  to  God  the  Father,  and  to  God  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

And  this  revelation  of  God,  which  Jesus  was 
always  making,  gathers  itself  up  into  clearest  form 
at  (a)  the  beginning,  and  (b)  the  end  of  His 
public  Ministry.  Christ  is  manifested  to  Israel 
(St  John  i.  31),  and  He  is  manifested  when  and 
how  ?  At  His  Baptism  in  Jordan,  where,  as  He  is 
praying,  the  heaven  opens,  and  the  Divine  voice 
of  God  the  Father  announces  Him,  ''This  is 
My  Beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased ;  " 
while  the  Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the 
Father,  descended  as  a  dove  and  abode  upon 
Him  (St  Matt.    iii.    16,    17,   St  John   i.   31-34)- 


I40  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

This  was  the  first  unmistakable  revelation  of  all 
the  Three  Persons  of  the  Godhead.  It  was 
continued,  as  we  have  seen,  and  developed,  in 
the  teachings  of  our  Saviour.  Expressed  in, 
or  underlying,  every  word  He  said  and  every  act 
He  did,  He  summed  it  up  at  last,  at  the  latest 
moments  of  His  sojourn  on  earth,  in  the  Name 
of  God  (the  symbol  to  unveil  His  Nature) 
which  He  commanded  His  disciples  to  put  upon 
every  man,  woman,  and  child  that  they  received 
into  His  Church:  ^*  Go,  make  disciples  of  all 
the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  Name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"  (St  Matt,  xxviii.  19).  This  Name,  if 
it  is  the  Name  of  Three  Persons  (distinguished 
simply  by  the  difference  of  their  relationship 
to  each  other,  not  by  any  difference  of  being 
or  nature),  is  yet  One  Name ;  and  our  Lord, 
Who  gave  it  as  the  Name  of  God,  had  ex- 
pressly and  solemnly  republished  the  creed  of 
Moses:  '^Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God, 
the  Lord  is  one :  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy 
soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  with  all  thy 
strength"  (St  Mark  xii.  29-30).  Nor  has  the 
Church  ever  held,  or  ever  tolerated,  the  notion 
that  there  are  more  Gods  than  one. 

Our  Lord  Himself,  therefore,  if  He  did  not 
use  the   term   "Trinity,"  taught   both   the   twin 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     141 

truths  which  make  up  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Trinity — the  Unity  of  God,  and  the  Three 
Divine  Persons  in  the  Godhead. 

The  revelation  of  God,  thus  given  by  Christ 
Himself,  was  taught  first  orally  by  the  Apostles, 
who,  with  their  pupils  and  assistants,  went  out  and 
preached  it  throughout  the  whole  world  from  the 
Euphrates  to  the  Tiber,  from  the  Euxine  to  the 
Nile.  As  they  preached,  so  they  baptized ;  and 
when  they  had  occasion  to  write  to  their  converts, 
whether  in  Gospel  or  Epistle,  their  writings 
constantly  imply  the  doctrine ;  and  ever  and  anon 
they  set  it  forth  in  terms  which  show  beyond 
question  that  they  believed  it  themselves  and 
wrote  for  readers  who  believed  it.^ 

The  Christian  Church,  therefore,  like  her  Jewish 
predecessor,  "  worshipped  That  which  she  knew  " 
(St  John  iv.  22,  R.V.)  ;  she  worshipped  the 
Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  very 
soon  (as  we  shall  see)  she  began  to  call  these 
Three  together  the  Trinity  (rplag) ;  and  as  one 
heretic  after  another  offered  her  some  other  doctrine 
in  its  place,  a  monopersonal  God  who  adopted  a 
man  to  be  His  Son  (Adoptionist),  or  again  a 
monopersonal  God  who  played  several  parts, 
to  which  the  names  of  Father,  of  Son,  or  of 
Spirit  might   successively  be   applied   (Sabellian), 

1  All  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  addressed  to  readers  who 
already  are  baptized  members  of  the  Christian  Church. 


142  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

she  repudiated  all  such  explanations  as  contrary 
to  the  Faith  she  had  received. 

At  last,  when,  by  the  sixth  century,  every  con- 
ceivable variation  of  teaching  on  the  subject  had 
been  vented,  she  spoke  in  the  solemn  tones  of  the 
Quicunque  vult^  and  warned  all  who  desired  to  be 
saved  that  they  must  not  allow  themselves  to  be 
seduced  into  any  sort  of  error  contrary  to  the  truth 
she  had  received  from  Christ  and  His  Apostles, 
and  from  the  beginning  of  her  course  had  taught. 

The  Quicunque  vult  (the   so-called   Athanasian 
Creed)  has  ever  since  remained  the  supreme  state- 
ment of  what  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is.     Let 
me  recall  to  you  its  clear  and  majestic  words : — 
''The   Catholic    Faith    is    this    that    we   worship 
One    God    in    Trinity,    and    Trinity    in    Unity ; 
neither  confounding  the  Persons  :  nor  dividing  the 
Substance.       For    there    is    one    Person    of    the 
Father,  another  of  the  Son  :  and  another  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.     But  the  Godhead  of  the  Father, 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  all  one  : 
the  Glory  equal,  the  Majesty  co-eternal.     Such  as 
the  Father  is,  such  is  the  Son  :  and  such  is  the 
Holy  Ghost.     The   Father  uncreate,  the  Son 
uncreate,     the    Holy     Ghost    uncreate.       The 
Father  incomprehensible,"  (i.e.  infinite),  "  the  Son 
incomprehensible,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  incompre- 
hensible.    So  likewise  the  Father  is  Almighty, 
the  Son  Almighty,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  Almighty. 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     143 

And  yet  They  are  not  Three  Almighties :  but  one 
Almighty.  So  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  God.  And  yet  They  are 
not  three  Gods,  but  one  God.  So  likewise  the 
Father  is  Lord,  the  Son  Lord,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  Lord.  And  yet  not  three  Lords,  but  one 
Lord.  For  like  as  we  are  compelled  by  the 
Christian  verity  to  acknowledge  every  Person  by 
Himself  to  be  God  and  Lord;  so  we  are  for- 
bidden by  the  Catholic  Religion  to  say.  There  be 
three  Gods,  or  three  Lords.  The  Father  is 
made  of  none :  neither  created,  nor  begotten. 
The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone ;  not  made,  nor 
created,  but  begotten.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son;  neither  made,  nor 
created,  nor  begotten,  but  proceeding.  So  there  is 
one  Father,  not  three  Fathers;  one  Son,  not  three 
Sons :  one  Holy  Ghost,  not  three  Holy  Ghosts. 
And  in  this  Trinity  none  is  afore,  or  after  other ; 
none  is  greater,  or  less  than  another;  but  the 
whole  Three  Persons  are  co-eternal  together,  and 
co-equal.  So  that  in  all  things,  as  is  aforesaid : 
the  Unity  in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in  Unity  is  to  be 
worshipped." 

There  are  many  in  all  our  Churches,  I  am  aware, 
who  dislike  what  are  called  the  ^  damnatory 
clauses"  of  this  great  "Sermon  on  the  Faith" — 
largely,  as  I  think,  because  they  take  its  opening 
words,    Quicunque   vult   salvari^    as    if    they    ran 


144  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Quicunque  sahabitur.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
^'Athanasian  Creed"  says,  in  its  closing  words, 
"  They  that  have  done  good  shall  go  into  everlast- 
ing life :  and  they  that  have  done  evil  into 
everlasting  fire."  In  those  so-called  damnatory 
clauses,  it  says  simply  that  if  you  want  to  be 
saved  from  sin  (from  doing  evil)  and  to  learn  to 
do  well,  you  must  believe  the  religion  of  Him 
who  is  the  only  Saviour  from  sin.  But  leaving 
that  as  a  side  issue,  and  confining  ourselves  to  the 
Quicunque  as  a  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  it  is  the  simple  fact  that  there  is  no 
National  Church  which  has  not  adopted  its  state- 
ment of  the  doctrine.  Its  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek  Church,^  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  of  the  Anglican  Church. 
The  Lutherans  prefixed  "  the  Three  Creeds  " — the 
Apostles',  Nicene,  and  Athanasian — all  of  them 
distinctly  Trinitarian — to  the  Augsburg  Confession^ 
and  they  form  part  of  the  public  confession  of  the 
Lutheran  Churches  to  this  present  day ;  while  the 
Calvinistic,  or  "Reformed  Churches,"  declared  in 
their  preface  to  their  chief  Confession,  the 
Second  Helvetic  (1566),  "With  a  sincere  heart 
we  believe  and  freely  profess  whatsoever  things 
are  defined  out  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  com- 

1  The  Greek  Church  rejects  the  words  *<  and  the  Son,"  objecting  to 
the  method  of  their  introduction  (in  the  West)  into  the  Nicene  Creed, 
and  misunderstanding  the  sense  which  Western  Christians  put  upon 
them. 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     145 

prehended  in  the  Creeds,  and  in  the  decrees  of 
those  four  first  and  most  excellent  Councils — held 
at  Nic2ea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon 
— together  with  Blessed  Athanasius's  Creed,  and 
all  other  creeds  like  to  these."  To  this  Second 
Helvetic  Confession  the  Church  of  Scotland  twice 
solemnly  adhered,  once  in  i  ^66^  under  the  guidance 
of  John  Knox,  and  once  again  in  1638,  under  the 
leadership  of  Alexander  Henderson,  the  famous 
"Apostle  of  the  Covenant,"  the  overthrower  of 
Charles  I.'s  Episcopacy  and  Prayer-Book.  In  the 
eighteenth  century,  in  the  trial  of  Professor 
Simson  for  heresy,  the  Athanasian  symbol  was 
treated  by  both  sides  as  authoritative.  And  its 
whole  doctrine  is  embodied  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith. 

Nor  would  I  be  saying  anything  that  the  facts 
of  the  case  are  insuiEcient  to  justify  were  I  to  add 
that  every  Church  which  has  departed  from  this 
Faith  has  ipso  facto  sealed  its  own  death-warrant. 
It  is  beyond  question  that  those  Churches,  and 
congregations,  in  England  and  in  Ireland  vhich,  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  let  go  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  faded  away  and  disappeared.  Christ 
built  His  Church  on  the  rock  of  St  Peter's  con- 
fession of  His  Godhead.  You  cannot  build  a 
lasting  Church  on  any  other  rock  (''other 
foundation,"  as  St  Paul  says,  "  can  no  man 
lay  than  that  is  laid ")  ;  and  you  cannot  hold 
K 


146  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Christ's  Godhead  apart  from  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity. 

It  is  also  true,  of  course,  that  ''to  a  consider- 
able number  of  individuals  not  otherwise  prejudiced 
against    Christianity,    this    doctrine    is    a    serious 
stumbling-block.     They  imagine  that  they  would 
find  it  simpler  to  believe  in  a  God  who  should 
be  one  Person  as  well  as  one  Substance^  like  the  God 
presented  by  the  Mahommedan,  or  by  the  modern 
Jewish  religion."     They  think  Unitarianism  more 
reasonable  than  Catholic  Christianity.     ''It  seems 
to   them    a   needless   complication,    an    arbitrary 
dogmatic   imposition,    to    teach   that    there    is   a 
Father,    a   Son,    and    a    Spirit,   who   are    all 
One.      If  they  do  not  think  it  an  actual  contra- 
diction, a  sheer  impossibility,  they  think  it  a  meta- 
physical  puzzle,    which    the   brains   of  ordinary 
Christians  ought  not  to  be  troubled  with.     They 
cannot  understand  why  the  Church  should  be  so 
solemn  in  her  warnings   against  all   attempts  to 
deny  any  of  the  terms  of  her  Faith,  or  to  explain 
away  any  portion  of  that  Name  of  God  which  our 
ascending    Saviour  bequeathed  to  us,  the   'Name 
of  the  Father^  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost:' ^ 

This  temper  has  had  its  representatives  in  every 
age ;  and  in  all  ages  those  who  have  yielded  to  it 

1  Mason,  Faith  of  the  Gospel. 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     147 

have    endeavoured    to    get    rid   of   the    doctrine, 
sometimes    by    direct    denial,    denying,    e.g.^    (a) 
that  it  is  scriptural,  (b)  that  it  is  primitive,  or  (c) 
that  it  is  of  practical  importance  ;  sometimes,  again, 
by  bringing  forward  some  other  doctrine   in   its 
place,  Unitarianism,  Sabellianism,  Arianism,  or  Tri- 
theism.     But  the  Church,  as  I  have  said,  has  been 
firm,  and  in  the  long  run  unanimous  in  rejecting 
alike  all  these  denials,  and  all  these  substitutes.  She 
has  known  the  Faith  ;  and,  amid  all  variations  upon 
other   points,    she   has   maintained    it.       Catholic 
worship  and  Evangelical  preaching  alike  take  the 
Trinity  for  granted,   and   proceed  upon  it.     We 
could  neither  say  ''Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and 
to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,"  nor  could 
we  preach  "  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved  "  unless  we  held  it. 

We    may    go    further.       The    very    doctrine 
which  modern  Unitarianism  parades  as  peculiarly 
its  own,  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  teach- 
ing of  St  John,  that  God  is  Love,  are  cut  off  by 
their  very  roots,  if  God  be  a  barren  unity  such  as 
Mahommedanism  and  modern  Judaism  assert  Him 
to  be.     Certain  it  is  that  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  of  those  religions  teaches  either  one  or  the 
other  of  these  most  blessed  truths.     Unitarianism 
got  them  from  Christianity ;  but,  as  I  said,  deny- 
ing   the    Christian    doctrine    of    the    Trinity, 
Unitarianism  leaves  for  them  no  intelligible  basis. 


148  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Love  implies  an  object :  if  God  were  mono- 
personal,  He  could  not  have  began  to  love  till  He 
had  first  created  something  on  which  to  fix  His 
love.  That  is  to  say,  He  could  not  be  love.  In 
Hke  manner  "  the  Father  "  implies  "  the  Son." 
The  terms  are  relative.  Where  there  is  no  Son 
there  is  no  Father.  On  the  Unitarian's  lips 
"  Fatherhood "  can,  logically,  be  no  more  than  a 
certain  '' fatherly  benevolence"  or  affection, 
which  was  not  eternal,  but  began  when  the 
creature  on  whom  it  rests  came  into  existence, 
or  attracted  its  Maker's  notice. 

It  is  sometimes  alleged,  however,  that  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  scriptural.  We 
answer  that  it  is :  that  if  the  terms  in  which  we 
speak  of  it,  ''Trinity,"  "Persons,"  ''Substance" 
are  not  in  Scripture,  yet  the  area  of  thought 
which  these  terms  cover  most  certainly  is ;  that 
the  truths  which  the  Church  understands  by 
these  terms  are  all  taught  in  Scripture ;  and  that 
the  Church's  whole  doctrine  on  the  subject  may 
be  proved  from  Scripture. 

Of  course,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  true 
now,  it  was  always  true.     One  part  of  this  truth 

the  Unity  of  God  (that  there  is  no  God  but  one) 

— was  revealed  to  the  Jews.  The  other  part  of  it 
(that  within  the  one  Divine  Substance  there  are 
Three  distinct  Persons)  was  not  plainly  revealed 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     149 

under  the  ancient  dispensation,  and  we  can  explain 
why.  There  was  constant  danger  lest  Israel  should 
fall  into  the  error  of  the  heathen,  and  imagine  that 
there  were  more  gods  than  one.  Still — for  our 
sake,  lest  we  should  deem  it  (when  at  last  it  was 
revealed)  the  mere  novelty  which  the  modern 
Jews  declare  it  to  be,  there  were  hints  and  sugges- 
tions of  it  even  in  the  Old  Testament.  These 
abound  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  (i.  26 ;  iii.  22 ;  xi. 
7;  xviii.  2,  3,  10;  xlviii.  15,  16);  but  there 
are  examples  all  through  the  Old  Testament,  for 
instance.  Num.  vi.  24-26;  Ps.  xxxiii.  6;  Ps. 
ex.  i;  Isa.  vi.  3  and  8;  Hos.  ii.  19,  20;  and 
Zee.  xii.  9,  10,  and  xiii.  7.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment teaching  in  regard  (a)  to  the  Messiah  whom 
it  promises  (Pss.  xlv.,  Ixxii.  ;  Isa.  ix.) ;  in  regard 
(b)  to  the  Wisdom  of  God  (in  the  eighth  chapter 
of  Proverbs),  a  wisdom  which  is  Personal^  and,  as 
I  heard  Professor  G.  Adam  Smith  preach,  *'at 
heart  redemptive  "i);  in  regard  (c)  to  the  Arm  and 
the  Word  of  Jehovah  ;  again,  (<i),  in  that  remark- 
able series  of  visions  called  the  Theophanies^  bears 
abundant  witness  to  the  personal  distinctness,  and 
the  true  Godhead  of  the  Son.  It  is  no  less  clear, 
in  many  passages  from  Genesis  to  Zechariah,  as  to 
the  Spirit  of  God.  These  features  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  not  to  be  lightly  dismissed.  They 
have  their  explanation  in  the  fact  that  the  earlier 

1  In  a  fine  sermon  preached  before  the  University  of  Glasgow. 


ISO  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

volume  of  Revelation  was  intended  to  be  follow^ed, 
as  it  has  been,  by  a  second.  It  is  simple  matter 
of  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  was  a  preparation 
for  Catholic  Christianity.  As  such  the  Catholic 
Church  accepted  it.     As  such  she  uses  it. 

There  was  enough  to  prepare  the  thoughtful 
and  beheving  reader  for  the  claims  which  Jesus 
was  to  make :  enough  to  prove  that  His  claims, 
when  He  did  make  them,  were  sanctioned  by  the 
Old  Testament ;  as  were  also  His  declarations  con- 
cerning "Another  Comforter,"  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whom  He  described  as  proceeding  from  the 
Father,  and  promised  to  send  upon  the  Church 
(St  John  xiv.,  xv.,  xvi.). 

But  the  knowledge  of  the  mystery  was  not 
necessary  till  the  Second  Person  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  had  become  Man,  and  the  Third  Person 
was  about  to  become  the  Teacher  of  the  Church. 
Therefore  (as  we  have  seen)  the  distinct  revela- 
tion of  it  was  first  made  for  us  at  the  Baptism  of 
Christ,  when  His  public  Ministry  began.  The 
Three  Adorable  Persons,  in  short,  were  manifested 
in  the  work  of  man's  Redemption ;  and  the 
language  used  by  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  in 
the  New  Testament  describes  Each  of  Them 
severally  as  God  and  Lord  ;  as  all  equal  (St  John 
V.  17,  18;  X.  30;  xiv.  9,  11;  Acts  V.  3,  4);  but 
still  as  only  One  God.  I  have  already  cited  our 
Saviour's  taking  up  the  words  of  Deuteronomy, 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     151 

"  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord  " 
(St  Mark  xii.  29).  His  doctrine  was  twice  re- 
asserted by  St  Paul  (1  Cor.  viii.  4,  and  Eph. 
iv.  6).  God  the  Father  is  revealed  to  us  in 
Scripture  as  the  First  Cause  of  all  things  (i  Cor. 
viii.  6) ;  God  the  Son  as  the  Creator  (St  John 
i.  1-3  ;  Col.  i.  16  ;  Heb.  i.  2)  and  Redeemer  (Rom. 
iv.  24,  25 ;  I  Cor.  xv.  3  ;  i  St  Peter  ii.  24)  ;  and 
God  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  Life  Giver  (St  John 
vi.  63  ;  Rom.  viii.  2,  11),  Teacher  (St  John  xvi. ; 
2  St  Peter  i.  21),  and  Sanctifier  (Gal.  vi.  8). 
Then,  as  we  saw,  our  Lord,  before  He  left 
the  world,  summed  up  His  whole  doctrine  of  God 
in  ^'  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  into  which  He  com- 
manded His  disciples  to  baptize  all  the  nations. 
This  Name  involves  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
It  cannot  be  accounted  for,  much  less  expounded, 
on  any  other  view ;  and  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  while  He  gave  it  just  before  His  Ascension, 
as  His  last  and  crowning  revelation,  it  was  received 
by  multitudes  before  one  book  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  written.  The  Church  is  older  than  the 
New  Testament.  The  New  Testament  was  written 
to  the  Church ;  it  was  understood  by  those  who 
not  only  knew  already  this  Name  of  God,  but  had 
been  baptized  into  it.  '•'•Into  the  Name^''  says 
Canon  Mason — "That  Name  is  the  Gospel.  Every 
spiritual  privilege  we  enjoy  is  to  be  found  in  it. 


152  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Our  baptism  ushers  us  into  it ;  for  it  puts  us  into 
a  living  connexion  with  the  God  who  is  thus  set 
forth,  and  who  obviously  wishes  us  to  understand 
what  the  Name  means." 

The  doctrine  is  Pri??iitive  as  well  as  scriptural. 
Controversy  (controversy  with  those  who  wished 
to  substitute  their  own  speculations  for  the  once- 
delivered  Faith)  made  churchmen  more  careful 
and  accurate  in  the  terms  they  employed,  and  even 
drove  them  to  invent  new  words  to  guard  against 
misrepresentations  of  the  ancient  Faith ;  but  the 
substance  of  that  Faith,  it  can  be  shown  (and  has 
been  shown  once  for  all  by  Bp.  Bull)  was  held 
from  the  beginning.  The  last  few  years  have 
witnessed  the  discovery  of  two  very  old  but  long- 
lost  Christian  treatises,  the  Didache  (or  Teaching 
of  the  Twelve — first  or  second  century) — and  the 
Apology  of  Aristides  {circ.  ii8).  Both  of  these 
bear  emphatic  witness  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
^'Baptize,"  says  the  Didache^  ^^into  the  Name  (e/g  t6 
oi/o//,a)  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost"  (vii.  i).  Christians,  says  Aristides 
(c.  15),  "know  Gob  the  Creator  and  Fashioner 
of  all  things  through  the  Only-Begotten  Son  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  ;  and  beside  Him  they  worship 
no  other  God."  The  word  ''Trinity  "  (as  a  term) 
we  first  find  in  the  Epistle  toAutolycus  of  Theophilus 
of  Antioch,  circ.  180.  In  the  year  256  we  have 
the   admirable   '^  Treatise  of  Novatian,  a  Roman 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     153 

presbyter,  concerning  the  Trinity,"  written  with 
a  special  view  to  confute  the  errors  of  Sabellius.^ 
The  Apostles'  Creed,  which  is  simply  an  expansion 
of  the  Baptismal  Name,  we  know  now  to  have 
been  in  use  as  early  as  144  in  the  Church  at  Rome. 
I  need  not  multiply  instances.  "The  whole 
succession  of  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers,"  says 
Principal  Hill,  "though  their  illustrations  are  not 
always  the  most  pertinent,  discover  by  innumer- 
able passages  that  they  worshipped  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  constituting  what 
TertuUian  calls  in  the  second  century,  Trinitas 
unius  Divinifatis ;  Cyprian  in  the  third,  Adunata 
Trinitas^  and  Athanasius  in  the  fourth,  adtdpsrog 
rplac."     (Hill's  Lectures  in  Divinity.') 

The  Church  rejected  every  other  doctrine,  as 
not  merely  erroneous,  but  blasphemous  towards 
God,  and  destructive  of  their  religion.  She 
rejected  thus  "  the  GoD-denying  novelties  of  the 
tanner  of  Byzantium"  (Theodotus),  and  the 
worldly  liberalism  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  She 
abhorred  the  Sabellianism  of  the  third  century. 
When  Arius  propounded  his  error  she  witnessed 
against  it  with  one  voice  ;  and  neither  the  bribes 
nor  the  persecution  of  emperors,  nor  the  defection 
of  confessors  so  venerable  and  illustrious  as  Hosius 
of  Cordova  and   Liberius  of  Rome,   could    move 

1  A  translation  of  this  work  is  given  in  the  Ante-Nicene  Library, 
where  it  is  appended  to  the  Works  of  Cyprian  (vol,  ii.). 


154  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

her  as  a  body  to  accept  anything  except  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  When  Macedonian  ism 
attempted  to  treat  her  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  much  as  Arianism  had  treated  that  of  the 
Eternal  Son,  she  rejected  it  at  once. 

There  are  two  chief  forms  of  error  in  regard  to 
this  truth  (besides  that  which  we  know  as 
Unitarianism)  that  we  must  guard  against,  Tritheism 
and  Sabellianism. 

Tritheism,  or  the  doctrine  that  the  Three  Persons 
are  Three  Gods,  has  never  been  formally  main- 
tained, though  it  may  be  feared  that  it  is 
unconsciously  the  creed  of  a  great  many  persons 
who  have  no  wish  to  dispute  the  teaching  of  the 
Church.  But  it  is  ^'•forbidden  by  the  Catholic 
Religion''' — directly  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
in  the  New,  and  by  the  fact  that  "  the  very 
notion  of  Deity  is  such  that  we  cannot  conceive 
of  it  as  possessed  by  more  than  one  Being.  Two 
or  three  or  more  beings  of  infinite  perfection  but 
mutually  exclusive  cannot  co-exist,  for  they  must 
necessarily  be  limited  by  each  other,  which 
would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms.  Nothing 
of  this  kind  is  taught  by  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  The  Threefold  Personality  of 
God  does  not  contradict  His  Unity  in  any  way ; 
it  shows  the  manner  or  condition  of  it.  It  is  not 
a  harmony  of  will  between  Three  individuals ;     it 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     155 

is  a  true  though  inexpressible  unity  of  Three 
Persons  mutually  depending  upon  each  other, 
and  completing  each  other,  indivisible,  and  incap- 
able of  existence  apart  from  one  another.  The 
life  of  all  Three  is  one  and  the  same  life ;  and  it 
has  but  one  source,  not  three.  The  very  titles  by 
which  They  are  known  to  us  imply  this.  These 
are  not  proper  names  like  those  of  the  heathen 
divinities,  but  titles  of  relationship  which  involve 
each  other  and  would  be  meaningless  alone. 

Yet  we  must  not  confuse  the  Persons  any  more 
than  divide  the  substance,  for  that  would  destroy 
the  Christian  verity.  Christ  says — "  I  and  My 
Father  " ;  and,  "  We  will  come  to  him."  *'  Believe 
also  in  Me."  ''The  Father  and  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  " ;  and  again,  "  I  will  pray  the 
Father  and  He  will  give  you  another  Com- 
forter." Sabellianism  turns  all  such  texts  into  "  a 
rhapsody  of  words."  It  does  worse.  It  destroys 
that  glorious  fact  of  God's  Being,  which  reveals 
Him  to  us  (amid  all  its  sublime  mysteriousness) 
as  sufficient  of  Himself  and  in  Himself  :  finding 
in  His  own  Being  the  objects  of  His  eternal  love, 
the  conditions  of  His  everlasting  felicity,  the 
"  image  "  after  which  to  create  alike  the  individual 
man  in  His  tripartite  nature,  and  human  society  in 
its  dear  relationships. 

Thus  this  much  -  maligned  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  supplies  us,   on   the  one  hand,  with  the 


156  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

supreme  guarantee  of  our  Christian  persuasion 
that  ^'GoD  is  love,"  and  bend  us  in  adoration 
as  glad  as  it  is  reverent — watch  a  congrega- 
tion as  they  sing  the  hymn,  "  Holy,  Holy, 
Holy !  "  It  provides  us,  on  the  other  hand,  with 
the  theological  basis  for  those  Social  Institutions 
which  most  of  all  evoke  self-sacrificing  love 
between  man  and  man — the  Family,  the  State,  the 
Church.  Why  should  a  monopersonal  God  say 
concerning  a  creature  made  in  His  own  image, 
"  It  is  not  good  that  the  man  should  be  alone  ? " 
But  if  the  Creator  was  indeed  a  Trinity,  the 
reason  becomes  clear  at  once.  Wedlock,  Father- 
hood, Sonship  are  so  many  means  of  reproducing 
on  earth,  according  to  the  measure  of  the  creature, 
the  archetypal  relations  in  which  the  Creator  had 
from  all  eternity  found  scope  for  the  outflow  of 
His  goodness,  and  joy  in  letting  it  thus  flow ; 
while  the  august  plurals  in  which  His  purpose  is 
declared — ''  Let  us  make  man  in  Our  image  after 
Our  hkeness,"  (Gen.  i.  26)  gain  a  new  signifi- 
cance to  the  enlightened  ear  of  the  Christian 
hearer. 

The  Family,  like  God,  though  not  mono-- 
personal,  is  one.  So  also  is  the  State — *'  a  kingdom 
divided  against  itself  is  brought  to  desolation." 
So,  above  all,  is  God's  Household  and  God's 
Kingdom,  the  Church.  Because  she  is  the  creation 
of  the  Holy  and  Undivided  Trinity,  the  Church 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  TRINITY     157 

is  at  once  a  unity  and  a  plurality — "  We  being  many 
are  one  bread  .  .  .  and  one  body"  (i  Cor.  x.  17). 
St  Paul  bases  her  unity  upon  the  Trinity  :  "  There 
is  One  Body,  and  "  (as  the  cause  thereof)  "  One 
Spirit  .  .  .  One  Lord  .  .  .  One  God  and 
Father  of  all "  (Eph.  iv.  4-6)  ;  and  our  Blessed 
Lord  (who  made  His  Church  one,  who  foresaw 
the  carnal  envies  and  strifes  which  should  deprive 
for  a  season  its  members  of  the  benefit  and  joy  of 
subjective  unity,  who  prayed  for  its  visible  union) 
grounds  His  petition  on  the  oneness  of  the  Persons 
in  the  Godhead — "that  they  may  be  one,"  He 
says,  "  as  We  are  one  :  I  in  them  and  Thou  in  Me, 
that  they  may  be  perfected  into  one,  that  the 
world  may  know  that  Thou  didst  send  Me,  and 
lovedst  them,  even  as  Thou  lovedst  Me " 
(St  John  xvii.  23).  It  is  what  the  world  is 
needing  ;  what  the  Church  herself,  through  all  her 
parts,  at  last  is  praying  for;  what  Christ  has 
promised :  "  They  shall  hear  My  voice,  and  they 
shall  become  one  flock,  one  Shepherd  "  (St  John 
X.  16).  And  it  must  be  so  if  we  are  to  be 
conformed  to  the  image  of  our  Maker,  for  He 
in  His  own  eternal  Being  is  Three  Persons  and 
One  God. 

Thus  it  can  be  seen  how  practical  the  doctrine 
is,  covering  the  whole  range  of  thought  and  con- 
duct (GoD-ward  at  once  and  man-ward),  of  prayer 
also,  and  highest-soaring  hope.      It  is  a  doctrine 


158  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

radically  incompatible  with  mere  Individualism ; 
but  then  we  are  not  mere  individuals.  We  are 
made  for  God,  and  for  each  other  in  God. 

Well,   then,   may  George  Herbert  thank  God 
for  having  revealed  this  mystery  : — 

<*  Thou  hast  but  two  rare  caskets  full  of  treasure, 
The  Trinity  and  Incarnation. 
Thou  hast  unlocked  them  both." 

And  well  may  we,  with  all  Christ's  Holy  Church 
throughout  the  ages  and  throughout  the  world, 
confess  it,  contend  for  it,  and  boast  in  it,  and  sing 
it  forth  in  that  ancient  strain  which  our  Scottish 
Church  historian,  Calderwood,  said  he  hoped  he 
would  sing  in  heaven — "Glory  be  to  the  Father, 
and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  as  it 
was  in  the  beginning,  is  now,  and  ever  shall  be, 
world  without  end.     Amen." 


THE   DIVINITY   OF   JESUS,   by   the    Rev.   DAVID 
SMITH,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Blairgowrie. 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS 

The  vindication  of  one's  faith  in  the  Divinity  of 
our  Lord  is  in  these  days  a  task  of  peculiar  difficulty. 
It  was  once  valid  to  quote  the  evangelic  narratives 
and  adduce  not  only  the  works  which  Jesus 
wrought  but  the  claims  which  He  made  ;  and  the 
controversies  which  arose  had  to  do  mainly  with 
interpretation  or  with  the  historicity  of  a  particular 
passage.  But  in  these  days  it  is  alleged  by  a 
fashionable  and  influential  school  of  criticism  that 
our  Gospels  are  practically  worthless  as  historical 
documents.  They  depict  Jesus,  not  as  He  actually 
lived  among  men,  but  as  He  appeared  to  a  later 
generation,  which  beheld  Him,  transfigured  and 
magnified,  through  a  haze  of  reverence  and  super- 
stition. His  supernatural  attributes  are  so  much 
Aberglaube.  The  Evangelic  Jesus  is  not  historic 
but  ideal.  ^'The  Christ  of  the  Apostles  is  the 
forerunner  of  the  Jesus  of  history,"  and  "  the  task 
of  the  historical  student "  is  to  "  work  back,  by 
aid  of  sources,  to  the  facts." 

And  what  remains  when  the  work  is  done? 
Only,  according  to  Professor  Schmiedel,^  nine 
mutilated  fragments  which  amount  to  a  repudiation 

1  Art.  "Gospels"  in  Encycl.  Bibl.,  vol.  ii. 
L  *^* 


1 62  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

of  divinity  and  a  confession  of  human  weakness. 
These  and  these  alone  he  pronounces  ^'  absolutely 
credible,"  "the  foundation-pillars  for  a  truly 
scientific  life  of  Jesus." 

It  is  interesting,  and  it  may  serve,  on  the  one 
hand,  to  check  the  arrogance  of  unbelief  and,  on 
the  other,  to  soothe  the  alarm  of  faith,  that  this 
attitude  toward  the  evangelic  records  is  no 
novelty.  It  is  as  ancient  as  the  fourth  century. 
"  First,"  said  St  Augustine,^  "  must  be  discussed 
that  question  which  is  wont  to  trouble  some,  why 
the  Lord  Himself  wrote  nothing,  so  that  it  is 
necessary  to  believe  the  writings  of  others  about 
Him.  This  is  said  by  those,  mostly  pagans,  who 
dare  not  blame  or  blaspheme  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
Himself,  and  attribute  to  Him  a  most  excellent 
wisdom,  yet  only  as  man.  They  say,  however, 
that  His  disciples  attributed  to  their  Master  more 
than  the  reality,  inasmuch  as  they  said  that  He 
was  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Word  of  God  by 
which  all  things  were  made,  and  that  He  and  God 
the  Father  were  one,  and  all  of  like  sort  in  the 
Apostolic  literature  whereby  we  have  learned 
that  He  should  be  worshipped  as  God  one  with 
the  Father."  The  coincidence  is  remarkable,  and  it 
is  in  no  wise  singular.  One  who  is  familiar  with 
the  Patristic  literature  is  frequently  edified  by  re- 
cognising in  the  latest  deliverances  of  destructive 

*  Be  Cons.  £v.  i.  II. 


•THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  163 

criticism  very  antique  foes  tricked  out  in  modern 
attire. 

Such  is  the  critical  contention  of  our  day,  and  I 
ask  you  to  approach  the  problem  by  a  path  which 
seems  to  me  most  reasonable,  and  which,  whatever 
its  worth  may  be,  has  this  to  recommend  it,  that 
it  has  brought  me  to  assurance  of  the  historicity 
of  the  evangelic  records  and  to  a  glad  faith  in  the 
Divinity  of  our  blessed  Lord. 

It  is  written  in  the  opening  chapter  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  how  Philip,  in  the  wonder  and  joy 
of  his  discovery  of  the  Messiah,  sought  out 
Nathanael  and  told  him  of  it.  ''  Him  of  whom 
Moses  in  the  Law  wrote  and  the  Prophets,  we 
have  found — Jesus  the  Son  of  Joseph,  the  Man  of 
Nazareth  I "  Nathanael  would  not  believe  it. 
A  Galilean  himself,  he  knew  the  ignorance  of  that 
northern  province  and  the  evil  reputation  of  that 
particular  town.  ^'From  Nazareth,"  he  retorted 
contemptuously,  quoting  apparently;  a  common 
proverb,  ^'  can  there  be  anything  good  ? "  Philip 
did  not  attempt  to  argue  the  question.  He 
answered  simply :  "  Come  and  see."  Nathanael 
went  and  saw,  and  presently  his  doubts  were  dis- 
pelled. "Rabbi,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God! 
Thou  art  the  King  of  Israel !  " 

Jesus  was  "  His  own  best  evidence."  It  was 
difficult  for  a  Jew  to  allow  His  claims,  so  inconsistent 
did  they  seem  with  the  Messianic  expectation  of 


1 64  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

the  day;  yet  He  seldom  argued  the  question. 
He  simply  manifested  Himself  in  the  wonder  of 
His  grace  and  goodness,  and  such  as  had  eyes  to 
see  and  hearts  to  understand  the  transcendent 
revelation  needed  no  other  evidence,  and  adored 
Him  as  their  Lord. 

Now,  if  the  evangelic  portraiture  be  indeed  a 
faithful  delineation  of  Him  who  dwelt  in  Palestine 
in  those  far  off  days,  it  ought  to  exercise,  in  some 
measure  at  least,  a  like  compulsion  upon  those 
who  approach  it  with  open  minds  and  earnest 
spirits.  It  ought  to  silence  their  doubt  and  com- 
mand their  faith.  It  were  well  if,  in  making  this 
experiment,  one  were  entirely  ignorant  of  Christi- 
anity and  could  approach  the  Gospels  with  a 
perfectly  unbiassed  mind,  after  the  manner  of  the 
old  shoemaker  in  Tolstoi's  story.  Where  Love  is 
there  is  God  also^  or  as  one  would  some  ancient 
MS.  newly  brought  to  light.  This  attitude  is,  of 
course,  impossible  for  us,  yet  we  may  attain  it  more 
or  less  approximately  by  resolutely  dismissing  the 
prepossessions  alike  of  faith  and  of  unbelief  and 
looking  with  unprejudiced  eyes  at  the  picture 
which  the  Evangelists  have  painted. 

It  is  a  singular  and  beautiful  picture.  It  por- 
trays One  strangely  unlike  the  men  we  know  or 
have  ever  heard  of  The  Evangelic  Jesus  is  a 
sinless  Man.  He  is  perfectly  human.  His  know- 
ledge   is    limited,    and    He    expressly   asserts    its 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  165 

limitation.  He  suffers  weariness,  hunger,  thirst, 
and  pain.  He  is  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we 
are.  Yet  He  is  never  worsted  by  temptation,  but 
passes  through  life  stainless  and  irreprovable.  He 
is  among  sinners,  yet  not  of  them. 

The  marvel  of  this  representation  is  twofold. 
On  the  one  hand,  Jesus  claimed  to  be  sinless.  He 
stood  before  the  world,  searched  by  a  multitude  of 
curious  and  critical  eyes,  and  issued  His  confident 
challenge :  "  Which  of  you  convicteth  Me  of 
sin?"  He  often  felt  the  pang  of  hunger,  but 
never  the  pang  of  remorse ;  He  was  often  weary, 
but  never  burdened  by  guilt ;  He  often  prayed, 
but  He  never  uttered  a  syllable  of  contrition  or  a 
cry  for  pardon.  On  the  eve  of  His  Betrayal, 
when  the  shadows  of  death  were  gathering  about 
Him,  He  could  lift  up  His  eyes  to  heaven  and 
say :  "  I  glorified  Thee  on  the  earth,  having 
accomplished  the  work  which  Thou  hast  given  Me 
to  do." 

And  this  is  a  singular  picture.  A  keen  and 
lively  sense  of  sin  has  ever  been  a  characteristic  of 
the  saints.  It  is  told  of  Juan  de  Avila  (a.d. 
1500-69)  that  as  he  lay  dying,  the  rector  of  his 
college  approached  him  and  said:  ''What  joy  it 
must  be  to  you  to  think  of  meeting  the  Saviour !  " 
''Ah!"  said  the  saint,  "rather  do  I  tremble  at 
the  thought  of  my  sins."  Such  has  ever  been  the 
judgment  of  the  saints  upon  themselves,  but  as  for 


1 66  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Jesus  no  word  of  self-condemnation  ever  crossed 
His  lips,  no  lamentation  over  indwelling  corruption, 
no  sigh  for  a  closer  walk  with  God.  It  is  not 
that  He  shut  His  eyes  to  the  presence  of  sin  or 
made  light  of  its  guilt.  Renan,  being  asked  what 
he  made  of^sin,  answered  airily  :  "  I  suppress  it !  " 
but  this  was  not  the  manner  of  Jesus.  His 
assertion  of  the  equal  heinousness  of  the  sinful 
thought  and  the  sinful  deed  has  immeasurably 
extended  the  sweep  of  the  moral  law  and  infinitely 
elevated  the  standard  of  holiness.  He  was  keenly 
sensitive  to  the  enormity  of  sin,  and  the  world's 
guilt  lay  like  a  heavy  burden  on  His  heart.  His 
presence  was  a  rebuke,  and  to  this  hour  the  very 
thought  of  Him  has  the  value  of  an  external 
conscience.  His  spotless  Ufe  is  a  revelation  at 
once  of  the  beauty  of  holiness  and  of  the  hateful- 
ness  of  sin. 

Nor  is  this  the  sole  marvel.  Not  only  did 
Jesus  claim  to  be  sinless,  but  His  claim  was 
universally  allowed.  The  first,  I  think,  who  ex- 
pressly challenged  it  was  the  philosopher  Celsus 
toward  the  close  of  the  second  century.^  His 
enemies  in  the  days  of  His  flesh  would  gladly  have 
found  some  handle  against  Him;  yet,  though 
they  jealously  scrutinised  Him,  ''  searching  Him 
with  candles,"  they  discovered  only  one  offence 
which  they  could  lay  to  His  charge,  and  they  did 

1  Orig.,  Contra  Celsum,  ii.  41. 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  167 

not  perceive  that  their  accusation  was  in  truth  a 
striking  testimony  to  His  perfect  and  unique 
holiness.  They  saw  Him  mingling  freely  with 
social  outcasts,  conversing  with  them,  and  going 
to  their  houses  ;  and  they  exclaimed  :  "  This  man 
receiveth  sinners,  and  eateth  with  them ! "  It 
would  have  been  no  surprise  had  He  associated 
with  sinners,  being  Himself  a  sinner.  Their 
astonishment  was  that  He  should  do  this,  being 
Himself  so  pure ;  and  their  exclamation  was  a 
covert  suggestion  that,  for  all  His  seeming  holi- 
ness. He  must  be  a  sinner  at  heart.  The  fault, 
however,  lay  not  with  Him  but  with  themselves. 
They  did  not  understand  that  true  holiness  is 
nothing  else  than  a  great  compassion.  Such  was 
the  holiness  of  Jesus,  and  it  was  a  new  thing  on 
the  earth,  an  ideal  which  had  never  been  conceived 
by  the  human  heart.  Had  the  Evangelists  been 
setting  forth  their  own  conception  of  a  holy 
man,  they  would  have  depicted  Jesus  after  the 
likeness  of  a  Pharisee. 

It  is  very  significant  that  Jesus'  claim  to  sinless- 
ness  should  have  been  thus  allowed  and  all 
unconsciously  attested  by  those  who  were  bent  on 
disproving  it.  Bronson  Alcott  once  said  to  Carlyle 
that  he  could  honestly  use  the  words  of  Jesus,  ''  I 
and  the  Father  are  one."  "Yes,"  was  the 
crushing  retort,  '^  but  Jesus  got  the  world  to 
believe  Him." 


1 68  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Another  point  to  be  noted  is  the  assertion 
which  Jesus,  according  to  the  Evangelists,  con- 
stantly made  and  persisted  in  to  the  last,  that  He 
stood  in  a  unique  relation  alike  toward  God  and 
toward  men.  He  identified  Himself  with  God. 
^'Therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  Him, 
because  He  said  God  was  His  peculiar  (75/01/) 
Father,  making  Himself  equal  to  God  "  (John  v.  1 8). 
"  He  that  receiveth  you,"  He  says  in  His  charge  to 
the  Twelve,  ''  receiveth  Me,  and  he  that  receiveth 
Me  receiveth  Him  that  sent  Me."  He  sets  Him- 
self forth  as  greater  than  the  Prophets.  They 
were  slaves ;  He  is  the  Son,  the  Heir.  They  had 
spoken  of  Him,  had  seen  His  day  afar  off,  and  had 
longed  to  see  Himself ;  and  He  announces  Himself 
as  the  fulfilment  of  their  prophecies.  "  Beginning 
from  Moses  and  all  the  Prophets,  He  interpreted 
unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things 
concerning  Himself." 

Moreover,  He  claimed  to  be  at  once  the  Saviour 
and  the  Judge  of  men.  He  had  "come  to  give 
His  life  a  ransom  for  many  " ;  He  bade  the  weary 
and  heavy  laden  come  unto  Him  and  find  rest  for 
their  souls ;  and  He  spoke  of  a  day  when  "  the 
Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  His  glory  and  all  the 
angels  with  Him,  and  shall  sit  upon  His  throne  of 
glory,  and  before  Him  shall  be  gathered  all  the 
nations."  How  tremendous  His  demands  upon 
His    followers!     He    pointed     to     the    dearest, 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  169 

tenderest,  and  most  sacred  relationships  of  human 
life,  and  claimed  for  Himself  a  prior  devotion. 
"  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  above  Me  is 
not  worthy  of  Me,  and  he  that  loveth  son  or 
daughter  above  Me  is  not  worthy  of  Me."  ^'If 
any  one  cometh  unto  Me  and  hateth  not  his 
father  and  mother  and  wife  and  children  and 
brethren  and  sisters,  yea,  moreover  his  own  life, 
he  cannot  be  My  disciple."  It  was  not  merely 
for  God,  nor  yet  merely  for  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven,  that  He  made  those  stupendous  demands : 
it  was  for  Himself.  Conceive  such  language  on 
the  lips  of  a  Galilean  peasant!  It  would  have 
seemed  the  language  of  insc^^nity  on  the  lips  of 
Socrates  or  Julius  Csesar,  and  would  have  been 
greeted  with  ridicule  and  contempt.  What  was 
there  about  the  gentle  Jesus  which  made  such 
language  seem  natural  and  fitting  on  His  lips?  It 
was  not  those  who  knew  Him  best  and  could 
judge  most  truly  of  the  justice  of  His  claims,  but 
the  blinded  Jews,  who  said  He  was  mad  and 
sought  to  kill  Him. 

Again,  the  words  which  the  Evangelists  put  in  the 
mouth  of  Jesus  are  unique.  One  cannot  read  them 
without  involuntarily  echoing  the  confession : 
"  Never  man  so  spake !  "  There  are  no  words 
hke  them  either  in  the  Bible  or  in  any  other  book. 
How  they  sparkle  and  glow  on  the  pages  of  the 
Gospels!     It  is  neither  exaggeration  nor  irrever- 


I70  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

ence  to  say  that  they  are  embedded  in  the  evangelic 
narrative  Uke  jewels  in  a  setting  of  base  metal. 
One  knows  instinctively  where  Jesus  ceases  and 
the  Evangelist  begins :  it  is  like  passing  into 
another  atmosphere.  I  remember  the  late  Pro- 
fessor A.  B.  Bruce  describing  how  once,  in  his 
ministerial  days,  he  was  studying  the  miracle  of 
the  healing  of  the  lunatic  boy,  and  stumbled  at 
the  verse:  "Howbeit  this  kind  goeth  not  out  but 
by  prayer  and  fasting"  (Matt.  xvii.  21).  The 
mention  of  "  fasting "  seemed  so  alien  from  the 
spirit  of  Jesus.  He  turned  up  his  Tischendorf 
and  found  that  the  verse  has  no  place  in  the 
authentic  text  of  the  First  Gospel,  having  been 
imported  into  it  by  some  copyist  to  bring  it  into 
agreement  with  the  parallel  tradition  of  the  Second 
(Mark.  ix.  29),  and,  moreover,  that  the  words 
^'and  fasting"  should  be  omitted  from  the  latter. 
The  genuine  sayings  of  Jesus  are  self-attesting. 
They  are  distinguishable  from  counterfeits  by 
simple  inspection. 

And  they  are  peerless.  They  have  a  beauty 
and  a  fragrance  peculiarly  their  own.  They  are 
no  lingering  voices  of  a  long  vanished  past.  They 
are  as  fresh  and  living  to-day  as  when  they 
were  first  spoken  by  the  Sea  of  Galilee  or  in 
the  city  of  Jerusalem.  They  palpitate  with 
life  and  make  our  hearts  burn  within  us,  remind- 
ing  us  how  He  said:  "The  words  which  I  have 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  171 

spoken   unto   you,   they  are  spirit  and  they  are 
Hfe." 

There  is  further  in  the  Evangelic  Jesus  a 
complete  absence  of  distinctively  national  char- 
acteristics ;  and  this  is  the  more  remarkable 
inasmuch  as  He  was  born  of  a  race  notorious  for 
its  intense,  exclusive,  almost  ferocious  patriotism. 
The  nationality  of  St  Paul  was  constantly 
prominent.  He  could  never  have  been  mistaken 
for  a  Greek  or  a  Roman.  He  says  indeed  that  he 
became  "all  things  to  all  men,  that  he  might  by 
all  means  save  some  " ;  but,  whatever  sympathetic 
disguises  he  might  assume,  he  remained  always 
a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  proud  of  his  nationa- 
lity (Phil.  iii.  4-7),  and  overflowing  with  tender  and 
compassionate  love  for  his  people  even  while  he 
pronounced  their  condemnation  (Rom.  ix.  1-5). 
It  was  far  otherwise  with  Jesus.  He  was 
absolutely  exempt  from  national  limitations;  so 
much  so  that  Renan,  arguing  from  the  name  of 
the  province,  Gelil  haggoyim^  "  circle  of  the 
Gentiles,"  that  the  Galileans  were  a  mixed  race, 
declares  it  impossible  "  to  ascertain  what  blood 
flowed  in  the  veins  of  Him  who  has  contributed 
most  to  eflface  the  distinctions  of  blood  in 
humanity."  This  is  a  perverse  fancy  unsustained 
by  the  actual  facts  and  contradicted  by  St  Paul's 
statement  gg  m  6  x^iarhg  rb  xara  ffd^KK.  Nevertheless 
it    serves  to  emphasise   an    indubitable  and  very 


172  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

remarkable  circumstance.  Jesus,  though  a  Jew 
according  to  the  flesh,  was  purely  human.  He 
recognised  all  mankind  as  children  of  God,  owned 
kinship  with  all,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  who 
did  the  will  of  His  Father,  and  pronounced 
Jerusalem  not  a  whit  more  sacred  than  the 
mountain  where  the  Samaritans  worshipped. 
And  all,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  drew  to 
Him.  He  was,  to  employ  an  exquisite  mis- 
translation, "  the  Desire  of  all  nations,"  the 
Saviour  for  whom  the  hearts  of  men  of  every 
chme  had  all  unconsciously  been  yearning,  and 
in  whom  all  the  families  of  the  earth  are  blessed. 
Another  noteworthy  feature  of  the  evangelic 
Jesus  is  His  attitude  toward  the  opinions  of  His 
time^  His  singular  detachment  from  current  theories. 
"  One  of  the  strongest  pieces  of  objective  evidence 
in  favour  of  Chiistianity,"  says  the  late  Dr 
G.  J.  Romanes,^  "is  not  sufficiently  enforced  by 
apologists.  Indeed  I  am  not  aware  that  I  have 
ever  seen  it  mentioned.  It  is  the  absence  from 
the  biograpy  of  Christ  of  any  doctrines  which 
the  subsequent  growth  of  human  knowledge — 
whether  in  natural  science,  ethics,  political  economy, 
or  elsewhere — has  had  to  discount.  This  negative 
argument  is  really  almost  as  strong  as  is  the 
positive  one  from  what  Christ  did  teach.  For 
when  we  consider  what  a  large  number  of  sayings 

1  Thoughts  on  Religion^  p.  157. 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  173 

are  recorded  of — or  at  least  attributed  to — Him, 
it  becomes  most  remarkable  that  in  literal  truth 
there  is  no  reason  why  any  of  His  words  should 

ever  pass  away  in  the  sense  of  becoming  obsolete 

Contrast  Jesus  Christ  in  this  respect  with  other 
thinkers  of  like  antiquity.  Even  Plato,  who,  though 
some  four  hundred  years  before  Christ  in  point  of 
time,  was  greatly  in  advance  of  Him  in  respect  ot 
philosophic  thought,  is  nowhere  in  this  respect  as 
compared  withj  Christ.  Read  the  Dialogues,  and 
see  how  enormous  is  the  contrast  with  the  Gospels 
in  respect  of  errors  of  all  kinds,  reaching  even 
to  absurdity  in  respect  of  reason,  and  to  sayings 
shocking  to  the  moral  sense.  Yet  this  is  con- 
fessedly the  highest  level  of  human  reason  on  the 
lines  of  spirituality,  when  unaided  by  alleged 
revelation."  Whatever  be  the  explanation,  the 
fact  stands  that,  so  far  as  the  record  goes,  Jesus 
never  uttered  a  sentence  which  entangled  His 
teaching  with  any  of  the  popular  notions  of  His 
day,  nor  yet — more  remarkable  still — with  any  of 
the  vexed  questions  of  science  or  criticism  which 
have  since  emerged.  When  the  Inquisition  con- 
demned Galileo,  it  was  not  to  the  Gospels  but  to 
the  Book  of  Joshua  that  they  appealed  in  support 
of  the  Ptolemaic  astronomy;  when  the  evolu- 
tionary hypothesis  was  propounded,  it  was  not 
with  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  but  with  the  Book 
of  Genesis  that  it  seemed  to  conflict ;  and  criticism 


174  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

may  assign  what  date  or  authorship  it  will  to  the 
Old  Testament  documents  unchecked  by  a  single 
pronouncement  of  Jesus. 

It  is  impossible,  however,  to  set  forth  in  detail 
all  the  manifold  wonder  of  the  Evangelic  Jesus. 
To  approach  that  peerless  picture  is  to  find  oneself 
in  the  presence  of  a  unique  and  transcendent 
Personality,  not  a  child  of  His  time  and  people, 
but  a  Visitant  from  a  loftier  realm.  "  Jesus  him- 
self," says  one  so  unbiassed  by  traditional 
reverence  as  Matthew  Arnold,^  "  as  he  appears  in 
the  Gospels,  and  for  the  very  reason  that  he  is 
so  manifestly  above  the  heads  of  his  reporters 
there,  is,  in  the  jargon  of  modern  philosophy,  an 
absolute ;  we  cannot  explain  him,  cannot  get 
behind  him  and  above  him,  cannot  command  him." 
Every  other  of  the  great  ones  of  history  may  be 
analysed  and  the  influences  which  went  to  the 
making  of  him  distinguished ;  but  Jesus  defies 
analysis.  He  was  not  made  nor  even  determined 
by  His  environment,  else  He  would  have  been  at 
every  point  the  precise  opposite  of  what  He  was. 
He  was  a  debtor  neither  to  Jew  nor  to  Greek. 
His  is  the  one  perfectly  original  and  absolutely 
self-determined  life  in  history.  He  defies  analysis 
and  refuses  classification.  He  will  not  be  ranked 
under  the  common  category  of  humanity. 

Such  is  the  Evangelic  Jesus.     What  shall  we 

1  Preface  to  Literature  and  Dogma. 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  175 

say  of  Him  ?  Must  we  not  acknowledge  Him  as 
the  Holy  One  of  God,  the  Lord  of  men,  the 
Saviour  of  the  world?  Immediately  objections 
start  up.  It  may  be  urged,  in  the  first  place,  that 
this  conclusion  presupposes  the  historicity  of  the 
evangelic  narratives. 

No,  remember  our  initial  position.  We  set 
out  with  no  prepossession  in  favour  of  the 
evangelic  narratives  and  no  prejudice  against  them, 
treating  them  all  alike,  and  making  no  discrimina- 
tion between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics. 
We  examined  them  precisely  as  we  might  any 
ancient  documents — say  the  Oxyrhynchus  Papyri 
— which  should  come  into  our  hands  unrecom- 
mended  either  by  divine  authority  or  by  traditional 
reverence.  And  we  have  discovered  in  them  a 
matchless  picture — One  who  lived  out  in  human 
condition  a  life  which  transcends  humanity, 
realises  the  ideal  of  divinity,  satisfies  the  yearning 
of  our  hearts,  and  commands  the  adoration  of  our 
souls.  We  do  not  say  with  the  late  Mr  T.  H. 
Green  ^  that  here  we  have  the  highest  ideal  of  the 
relation  between  God  and  man,  and  it  matters 
not  how  it  has  arisen.  We  say  rather  that  it  is 
too  wonderful  to  be  the  invention  of  any  human 
mind  and  must  be  historical.  The  Evangelic 
Jesus  is  self-attesting.  It  is  He  that  attests  the 
narratives,  not  they  that  attest  Him. 

^  Worksy  vol.  iii.  p.  242. 


176  ST  NINTAN  LECTURES 

It  is  incredible  that  that  Divine  Life  should  be 
a  mere  dream.  The  man  who  conceived  it  must 
have  been  himself  divine.  It  would  have  needed 
a  Jesus  to  invent  Jesus.  Pfleiderer  has  propounded 
a  theory  that  St  Paul  was  the  creator  of 
Christianity.  This  is  his  method :  He  first 
ascertains  from  the  recognised  Epistles  the 
Apostle's  conception  of  Christianity,  and  then 
proceeds  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  reflected  in  the 
evangelic  narratives.  It  is  not  the  Jesus  of  history 
that  the  Evangelists  pourtray,  but  the  Christ  of 
the  Pauline  theology.^  The  answer  is  simple  and 
direct :  If  St  Paul  were  indeed  the  creator  of  the 
Evangelic  Jesus,  then  St  Paul  was  immeasurably 
greater  than  we  have  ever  suspected.  Ere  he 
could  conceive  such  an  ideal,  he  must  have  been 
himself  divine,  and  it  remains  that  we  should 
transfer  to  him  the  adoration  which  we  have 
accorded  to  Jesus. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  the  Evangelic  Jesus 
should  be  a  creation,  whether  of  some  master 
mind  or  of  the  myth-forming  genius  of  the 
primitive  Church.  Humanity  cannot  transcend 
itself.  Surely  scepticism  has  its  credulity  no  less 
than  faith  when  it  is  gravely  maintained  that  so 
radiant  an  ideal  arose  ''among  nearly  the  most 
degraded  generation  of  the  most  narrow-minded 
race  that  the  world  has  ever  known,  and  made  it 

1  Urchrittenfhum,  S.  520. 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  177 

the  birthplace  of  a  new  earth."  ^  The  mere  fact 
that  there  dawned  on  the  world,  and  that  in  a 
land  barren  of  wisdom  and  an  age  morally  bank- 
rupt, an  ideal  which  has  been  the  wonder  and 
inspiration  of  mankind  for  more  than  sixty  genera- 
tions, is  an  irrefragable  evidence  that  it  is  no  mere 
ideal  but  an  historic  fact.  The  Divine  Life  which 
the  Evangelists  pourtray  must  have  been  actually 
lived  out  on  the  earth,  else  they  could  never  have 
conceived  it. 

And  thus  the  Evangelic  Jesus  is  Himself  the 
supreme  evidence  at  once  of  the  historicity  of  the 
evangelic  narratives  and  of  His  own  Divinity. 
^' For  me,"  says  St  Ignatius,^  ''the  archives  are 
Jesus  Christ,  the  inviolable  archives  His  Cross  and 
Death  and  His  Resurrection  and  the  Faith  that  is 
through  Him."  No  criticism  can  shake  this  sure 
foundation.  It  may  be  that  the  Gospels  contain 
inaccuracies  and  inconsistencies — though  it  were 
well  for  such  as  love  to  dwell  on  these  to  consider 
Rothe's  warning  against  the  perversity  which,  "  in 
examining  the  sun-spots,  misses  the  sun."  It  may 
be  that  the  Evangelists  were  liable  to  err  and 
subject  to  the  deflections  of  contemporary  opinion 
and  personal  prejudice — though  the  more  one 
studies  their  writings  the  surer  does  one  grow 
that,  untenable  as  every  theory  of  inspiration  may 
be,  some  singular  aid  must  have  been  vouchsafed 

1  Hutton,  Theol.  Ess.i  p.  290.  2  £p^  ad  Philad.  viii.  2. 

M 


lyS  ST  N  INI  AN  LECTURES 

to  those  unlearned  men  who  "carried  so  much 
aether  in  their  souls."  It  will  hardly  be  disputed 
by  any  intelligent  believer  in  the  Divinity  of  our 
blessed  Lord  that  He  was  imperfectly  compre- 
hended and  inadequately  represented  by  His 
biographers.  What  human  mind  could  perfectly 
comprehend,  what  human  hand  adequately  depict, 
the  vision  of  His  glory  ^  It  is  impossible  to  gain- 
say such  contentions,  but  they  may  be  the  more 
cheerfully  allowed  inasmuch  as  they  furnish  a 
considerable  argument  for  the  historicity  of  the 
evangelic  narratives  and  the  Divinity  of  Him  they 
tell  of.  The  fact  that  Jesus  is  "so  manifestly 
above  the  heads  of  His  reporters  "  is  a  conclusive 
evidence  that,  when  they  wrote  of  Him,  they 
were  not  composing  a  work  of  the  imagination  but 
relating  in  all  honesty  and  simplicity  "things 
which  they  had  seen  and  heard."  And  the  very 
imperfection  of  their  narratives  is  an  involuntary 
testimony  to  His  ineffable  glory.  When  every 
deduction  has  been  made,  the  Evangelic  Jesus 
remains  a  wondrous  picture.  Blurred  as  it  may 
be  by  reason  of  the  unskilfulness  of  the  artists,  it 
is  still  a  picture  limned  in  light  of  One  fairer  than 
the  children  of  men ;  and  if  a  picture  painted  by 
weak  human  hands  be  so  transcendently  beautiful, 
what  must  have  been  the  glory  of  the  Divine 
Original  ? 

It    may    be    objected    again    that,   even   if  the 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  179 

historicity  of  the  evangelic  narratives  be  allowed^ 
Jesus  may  he  accounted  for  on  naturalistic  principles. 
He  is,  it  may  be  alleged,  simply  the  Perfect  Man, 
the  first  we  know  of  and  perhaps  the  only  one 
who  has  realised  the  sacred  ideal  of  humanity. 
He  was  a  man  with  a  unique  genius  for  religion, 
and  He  stands  pre-eminent  in  His  department 
precisely  as  Michelangelo  and  Shakspeare  in  theirs. 

Surely,  however,  it  is  fatal  to  this  theory  that 
Jesus  appeared  when  He  did  in  the  course  of 
human  history.  Were  He  simply  the  Perfect 
Man,  He  would  still  present  an  insoluble  problem. 
For,  according  to  the  law  of  evolution,  the 
Perfect  Man  should  appear  late  as  the  consumma- 
tion of  humanity's  long  development.  His  ap- 
pearance midway,  and  that  in  a  decadent  race  and 
a  period  of  universal  corruption,  were  wholly 
inexplicable.  It  were  strangely  premature.  His 
advent  should  be  still  far  off,  the  goal  toward  which 
upward-aspiring  humanity  is  still  tending  and  ever 
more  nearly  approaching.  Were  He  but  the  Per- 
fect Man,  Jesus  would  be  as  one  born  out  of  due 
time,  as  the  ripe  ear  in  the  season  of  the  green 
blade. 

Neither  is  He  merely  the  supreme  religious 
genius.  Though  Michelangelo  and  Shakspeare 
stand  unrivalled  in  art  and  poetry,  others  also  have 
been  great,  though  in  lesser  measure,  and  have 
not  owned  them  as   their  masters    or   inspirers. 


i8o  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

But  all  the  saints  during  these  sixty  generations 
have  looked  up  to  Jesus,  have  derived  their 
holiness  from  Him,  and  have  confessed  that  it  was 
His  grace  alone  which  made  them  what  they  were. 
He  is  not  simply  the  supreme  religious  genius,  but 
the  Saviour  who,  on  their  own  confession,  has 
lifted  sinners  out  of  the  mire  and  transformed 
them  into  saints.  It  were  indeed  rash  to  affirm 
that  but  for  Jesus  there  would  have  been  no  saints 
during  these  nigh  two  thousand  years ;  neverthe- 
less it  is  a  fact  that  every  saint  who  has  lived  upon 
the  earth  and  made  it  sweeter  by  his  presence, 
has  owned  Jesus  as  his  Lord  and  found  peace  and 
hope  in  Him  alone.  Appeal  to  the  experts. 
Their  judgment  is  final.  And  the  saints  are  the 
experts  here. 

And  thus  we  turn  aside  from  the  strife  of 
criticism  and,  with  quiet  assurance,  rest  our  souls 
on  Jesus  as  on  a  strong  foundation  which  stands 
firm  amid  the  removing  of  the  things  that  are 
shaken.  "For  another  foundation  can  no  man 
lay  than  the  one  that  hath  been  laid,  which  is 
Jesus  Christ."  The  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the 
manifestation  of  the  Eternal  God  is  the  end  of  all 
controversy. 

*'  I  say,  the  acknowledgment  of  God  in  Christ, 
Accepted  by  thy  reason,  solves  for  thee 
All  questions  in  the  earth  and  out  of  it."  ^ 

1  Browning,  A  Death  in  the  Desert. 


THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  i8i 

It  settles  every  dispute.  Is  it  the  existence  of 
God  that  is  disputed  ?  Jesus  is  God  manifest  in 
the  flesh,  Dei  inaspecti  aspectabilis  imago.  Is  it 
immortality  that  is  doubted  ?  He  has  given  us 
His  word  for  it:  ^'If  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have 
told  you  "  ;  and  He  is  the  King  of  Eternity,  who 
knows  the  wonders  of  that  undiscovered  country, 
and  who  came  and  dwelt  among  us  and  told  us 
glad  tidings  of  it.  Is  it  miracles  that  are  objected 
to  ?  Jesus  is  Himself  the  Miracle  of  miracles  ; 
and,  in  view  of  the  transcendent  miraculousness  of 
His  sinless  humanity,^  it  were  foolish  to  cavil  at 
the  lesser  miracles  which  the  Evangelists  record. 
It  is  no  marvel  that  Jesus  should  have  wrought 
miracles ;  the  marvel  were  rather  if,  being  what 
He  was,  He  had  not.  Once  He  is  seen  in  His 
wonder  and  glory,  faith  is  absolutely  inevitable. 

The  truth  is  that  the  objects  of  faith  do  not 
admit  of  demonstration.  ^'All  first  principles 
even  of  scientific  facts,"  says  Romanes,^  "are 
known  by  intuition  and  not  by  reason.  No  one 
can  deny  this.  Now  if  there  be  a  God,  the  fact  is 
certainly  of  the  nature  of  a  first  principle  ;  for  it 
must  be  the  first  of  all  first  principles.  No  one 
can  dispute  this.  No  one  can  therefore  dispute 
the  necessary  conclusion  that,  if  there  be  a  God, 
He  is  knowable  (if  knowable  at  all)  by  intuition 

1  Bruce,   Hum.  of  Ckr.,  p.  208,  n.  i  : "  A  sin/ess  Christ  is  as  great  a 
miracle  as  a  Christ  who  can  walk  on  the  water." 
^  Thtughts  on  Religion y  p.  146. 


1 82  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

and  not  by  reason."  So  long  as  faith  rests  on 
demonstration,  it  can  never  be  more  than  a  proba- 
bility, and  must  lie  at  the  mercy  of  every  subtle 
logomachist.  That  is  a  significant  confession  of 
one  of  the  interlocuters  in  Cicero's  Tusculan 
Disputations  that,  while  he  was  reading  Plato's 
Fhizdo^  he  felt  sure  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
but,  whenever  he  laid  the  dialogue  aside,  his  belief 
slipped  away  from  him.  And  this  is  the  priceless 
service  that  Jesus  has  rendered  to  our  souls,  which 
were  made  for  God  and  are  restless  until  they  find 
rest  in  Him,  that  He  has  lifted  faith  for  ever  out 
of  the  domain  of  reason  into  that  of  intuition,  and 
has  made  it  sure  and  abiding  for  every  one  who 
has  eyes  to  behold  His  glory  and  a  heart  to 
understand  and  welcome  His  love. 


THE  ANSWER  OF  IDEALISM  TO  AGNOSTI- 
CISM IN  RELATION  TO  THE  PERSON  OF 
CHRIST,  by  the  Rev.  JAMES  ROBERTSON 
CAMERON,  M.A.,  Glasgow. 


THE  ANSWER  OF  IDEALISM  TO  AGNOSTI- 
CISM IN  RELATION  TO  THE  PERSON  OF 
CHRIST 

The  aim  of  this  paper  by  request  is  to  relate  the 
ideas  of  it  to  the  problem  of  the  Person  of  Christ, 
which  is  at  once  the  most  personal  and  pressing 
problem  of  the  present ;  and  it  cannot  be  discussed 
in  even  a  partial  way,  which  is  all  that  is  attempted 
here,  without  the  aid  of  "  divine  philosophy."  One 
may  be  permitted  at  the  outset  to  explain  that  the 
standpoint  taken  in  this  paper  is  the  standpoint  of 
Idealism  as  it  is  found  more  or  less  in  the  writings 
of  the  late  Master  of  Balliol,  Dr  Edward  Caird, 
the  great  and  revered  teacher  of  philosophy  up 
till  recent  years  within  these  academic  halls. 
The  days  when  one  was  borne  as  upon  the  wings 
of  the  morning  to  his  class-room,  close  to  this,  are 
days  which  one  can  never  recall  without  profound 
feelings  of  gratitude,  and  what  one  owes  to  his 
persuasive  eloquence  and  to  his  lofty  mind  and 
character  is  more  than  one  can  tell.  For  the  sake 
of  others  one  would  fain  invoke  his  ''  so  potent  art " 
and  summon  out  of  the  vanished  years  the  voice, 
the  look,  the  language,  with  which  he  held  us 

spellbound  in  those  burning  hours  of  early  thought. 

185 


1 86  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

It  is  the  conviction  of  many  that  what  is  called 
the  transcendental  movement  in  philosophy,  which 
Kant  may  be  said  to  have  introduced,  so  far  from 
being  spent,  is  as  real  a  factor  as  science  itself  in 
the  trend  of  thought  in  our  age,  and  is  indispensable 
as  a  means  of  attaining  to  that  rational  faith  in 
Christian  facts  which  it  becomes  us  to  attain.  The 
movement  has  issued  in  Idealism,  not,  it  may  be 
admitted,  in  any  full  or  final  system  of  Idealism, 
for  this  has  not  been  achieved,  but  in  the  Idealistic 
standpoint,  the  Idealistic  spirit,  the  spirit  which 
permeates  the  highest  art  and  poetry  of  the  past 
century.  It  has  issued  in  a  spirit  more  than  in 
a  system,  but  if  any  one  would  trace  the  growth 
of  the  modern  spirit  and  understand  the  principles 
involved  in  it,  one  must  needs  begin  with  Kant, 
and  to  begin  with  Kant  is  to  continue  with  Hegel, 
and  to  end  with  Idealism  or  the  Idealistic  stand- 
point represented  by  the  British  Idealists.  It  is  not 
too  much  to  say  that  to  know  Kant  before  and 
after  is  to  know  the  modern  spirit,  its  point  of 
view,  its  note,  its  atmosphere,  its  uniqueness,  of 
which  we  find  as  valid  because  as  vital  witnesses 
in  art,  literature,  and  music.  The  same  spirit 
which  we  find  at  least  beginning  to  be  in  Kant's 
Critiques,  pervading  Hegel's  Dialectic  and  philo- 
sophic thought  since  Hegel,  we  find  in  the  thoughts 
of  Goethe,  the  dreams  of  Coleridge,  the  prophetic 
insights  of  Wordsworth,  the   haunting  melodies 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     187 

of  Wagner,  the  luminous  landscapes  of  Turner  and 
Francois  Millet,  and  the  work  of  Watts,  Tennyson, 
and  Browning.  Must  we  not  admit  that  amid  all 
this  variety  of  men  and  minds  there  is  a  certain  subtle 
likeness,  the  presence  of  something  which  knits 
them  together, — a  sense  of  vision  and  nearness 
to  the  spiritual  world,  a  sort  of  divination  that  the 
truth  of  things  is  to  be  found  in  the  Divine 
Immanence  ?  One  might  have  spent  some  time 
upon  this  fascinating  theme,  and  have  tried  to 
prove  the  existence  of  an  element  not  found 
in  the  Italian  Art  of  the  Renaissance,  oj:  in 
the  literature  of  the  Elizabethan  period,  or 
any  other  period,  but  found  in  those  seers  and 
singers  of  a  later  day,  a  new  attitude  and  way  of 
looking  at  and  feeling  things,  a  new  spirit  which 
Wordsworth  expressed  in  epoch-making  words  like 
these : — 

«*  And  I  have  felt 
A  presence  that  disturbs  me  with  the  joy 
Of  elevated  thoughts  :  a  sense  sublime 
Of  something  far  more  deeply  interfused.'* 

A  sense  sublime  of  something  far  more  deeply 
interfused  is  the  superscription,  as  one  might  say, 
to  be  written  over  our  age.  It  expresses,  as 
adequately  perhaps  as  words  can  do,  the  point  of 
view  or  spirit  which  gives  distinction  to  our  age, 
and  which,  so  far  as  it  can  be  expressed  in  philo- 


1 88  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

sophical  terms,is  best  of  all  expressed  in  those  of 
Constructive  Idealism. 

Philosophy  is  as  vital  and  valid  an  activity  as 
any  of  the  activities  of  the  human  personality, 
and  if  we  would  know  our  age  we  must 
know  not  its  literature  and  art  alone,  but  also 
its  philosophy.  It  is  an  error  to  suppose  that 
philosophy  is  a  sort  of  mere  guesswork,  airy 
speculation,  as  it  were,  out  of  all  relation  to  the 
practical  concerns  of  life.  An  embodiment  of  the 
mind  of  man  so  perennial  as  philosophy  is  no  more 
likely  to  vanish  before  the  march  of  science  than 
the  mind  itself.  Philosophy  is  as  necessary  to 
science  as  science  is  to  philosophy  and  as  both 
are  to  man,  and  probably  it  is  true  to  say  that  in 
the  various  philosophies  known  to  history  there 
is  to  be  found  '*  the  clearest  indication  of  the 
relation  in  which  successive  stages  of  society  stand 
to  one  another."  No  doubt  in  one  sense  every 
philosophy  has  been  refuted ;  it  has  passed  away 
with  the  age  of  which  it  was  the  reflection.  But 
in  another  sense  "  every  philosophy  has  been  and 
still  is  necessary,"  a  stage  in  the  evolution  of 
the  one  philosophy  unfolding  itself  in  the  philo- 
sophies. For  there  is  no  staying  of  the  impulse 
in  man  that  makes  him  feel  after  if  haply  he 
may  find  the  One.  So  that  if  from  one  point 
of  view  the  history  of  philosophy  may  seem  to 
present  the  spectacle  of  a  pathway  strewn  with 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     189 

the  ^^niages  of  broken  gods,"  the  fragments  of  "our 
little  systems  "  which  have  ceased  to  be,  yet  from 
another  it  is  the  exhibition  of  a  continuous  process 
in  which  the  one  philosophy  beneath  all  philosophies 
gradually  comes  to  be.  There  is  nothing  that 
points  more  conclusively  to  the  truth  of  the  theory 
which  Idealism  maintains  than  the  perpetual  quest 
of  the  human  mind  after  Reality.  That  perpetual 
quest  is  meaningless  unless  it  is  founded  on  the 
faith  that  Reality  is  knowable.  With  the  Unknow- 
able philosophy  can  have  nothing  to  do  save 
only  as  a  stage  on  the  way  to  a  higher  point  of 
view.  Set  up  the  Unknowable  as  an  ultimate 
principle  and  you  pull  down  philosophy ;  its 
whole  function  withers  beneath  the  negation. 
The  secret  of  the  survival  of  philosophy,  which 
is  just  the  speculative  impulse  in  man,  as  of  all 
serious  science  and  conduct,  lies  in  what  Hegel 
calls  trust  in  Providence,  trust,  that  is  to  say,  in  the 
inherent  rationality  of  the  universe.  It  has  not 
all  been  wasted  labour,  the  labour  of  the  thinkers 
on  the  first  and  last  things.  There  has  been 
advance  in  the  statement  as  well  as  in  the  solution 
of  the  problem,  and  certain  definite  results  have 
been  achieved  and  lie  embedded  in  language  and 
literature,  in  habits,  tendencies,  presuppositions  of 
thought  and  belief  Unconsciously  men  think  in 
the  forms  and  talk  in  the  terms  of  reason,  and  if 
they  were  to  trace  the  history  thereof  they  would 


I90  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

find  themselves  upon  a  pathway  stretching  back 
into  the  past,  and  into  the  presence  of  the  men 
who  stood  at  the  turning-points  and  shaped  the 
course.  It  is  only  indeed  since  the  historic  spirit 
was  born  and  began  to  work  among  ideas  that  men 
have  begun  to  see  how  intricate  is  their  growth 
and  how  subtle  are  the  links  that  bind  them 
together.  And  at  its  touch,  as  at  the  touch 
of  some  magic  key,  all  the  past  is  giving  up  its 
treasure,  a  treasure  which,  far  from  being  a  mere 
confusion  of  tongues,  is  found  to  be  a  continuous 
process  of  discussion,  ''  a  dialectic  movement 
running  through  the  ages." 

Now  as  it  is  of  importance  that  we  should 
understand  the  attitude  of  the  historic  spirit,  for 
this  purpose  we  may  compare  it  briefly  with  two 
other  attitudes  which  men  have  taken  towards 
the  past.  There  is  first  the  attitude  of  submission 
to  authority,  the  most  notable  example  of  which  is 
scholasticism,  where  discussion  moves  within  the 
lines  of  some  master-mind  or  creed  which  has 
come  to  be  regarded  almost  as  divine.  The 
second  attitude  is  that  of  revolt  against  authority, 
the  claim  of  independence  in  thought  represented 
by  Bacon,  Descartes,  Locke,  and  Kant.  They  all 
profess  to  make  a  fresh  beginning,  putting  out 
of  sight  the  things  that  are  behind.  But  there  is 
no  escape  from  the  past  simply  by  ignoring  it.  It 
could  be  shown  in  every  case,  by  an  examination 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     191 

of  their  thought,  how  that  in  this  or  that  notion  or 
assumption,  slipping  in  as  if  by  stealth,  the  past 
inevitably  asserts  itself.  There  is  escape  from  the 
past  only  if  we  take  up  not  an  attitude  of  revolt 
from,  but  of  sympathy  with,  it,  seeking  to  appreciate 
the  connexion  of  ideas  with  their  antecedents,  and 
finding  in  the  history  of  them  the  judgment  of 
them.  The  history  of  ideas  is  both  their  judg- 
ment and  their  justification.  Thus  a  doctrine  con- 
demned as  inadequate  for  to-day  may  at  the  same 
time,  in  relation  to  its  own  epoch  and  the 
circumstances  of  its  origin,  be  seen  to  have  its 
fitting  place.  Although  we  cannot  now  express  our 
thought  in  the  terms,  for  example,  of  the  scholastic 
philosophy,  yet  we  may  discern  in  them  a  suitable 
medium  for  the  ideas  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Dry 
and  dead  as  that  type  of  philosophy  seems  to- 
day, nevertheless  on  closer  scrutiny  it  turns  out 
to  be  full  of  the  strange  interests  and  yearnings  of 
its  age,  and  it  is  possible  to  see  in  it  something  of 
the  same  elaboration  of  design,  and  patience,  and 
skill  of  construction  as  are  to  be  seen  in  the 
abbeys  and  cathedrals  which  about  the  same  time 
were  erected  in  Northern  Europe.  So  if  we 
cannot  adopt  the  dualism  of  Descartes  and  Kant, 
or  Locke's  notion  of  the  passivity  of  mind,  that 
need  not  prevent  us  admitting  the  vast  debt  which 
modern  thought  owes  to  them,  a  debt  which 
can  only  be  appreciated  from  the  standpoint  of  the 


192  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

historic  spirit.  For  from  that  point  of  view  it  is 
impossible  merely  to  condemn  their  thinking  on 
account  of  its  mistakes  without  allowing  that  it 
contains  elements  of  truth,  and  has  its  place  in  the 
process  by  which  the  human  mind  advances  to  its 
goal  and  in  which  our  own  thinking  is  included. 

Two  things  may  be  said  to  have  worked  together 
to  establish  the  historic  spirit.  The  one  is  the 
progress  of  science  by  the  application  to  the 
facts  within  its  province  of  the  categories  of 
organism  and  evolution,  and  the  other  is  the  philo- 
sophical method  associated  with  the  name  of  Hegel. 
No  philosophy  has  so  often  been  condemned  for 
being  a  priori  woven  out  of  fiction,  not  of  facts, 
but  the  truth  is  that  no  philosophy  has  its 'roots 
struck  so  dc^p  in  the  soil  of  history.  '-'-  On  the 
whole,"  says  Hegel,  "  the  sequence  of  the  philo- 
sophical systems  is  similar  to  the  sequence  of  the 
categories."  In  seeking  to  arrange  the  conceptions 
of  our  ordinary  and  scientific  thinking  in  their 
logical  order,  Hegel  finds  traces  of  a  kindred 
movement  in  the  speculative  labour  of  the  mind  in 
history.  Like  the  earliest  categories  in  relation 
to  the  latest,  the  earliest  philosophies  are  the 
poorest  and  most  abstract,  leading  to  the  richer 
and  the  more  concrete. 

Thus,  if  Hegel's  logic  is  the  outcome  of  a  pro- 
found knowledge  of  history,  it  in  turn  suggests  a 
new  method  of  dealing  with  history,  the  method 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM 


93 


of  development.  To  that  method,  science  in  its 
own  domain  has  set  its  seal,  but  in  the  hands  of 
the  philosopher,  it  is  carried  farther,  and  is  applied 
to  all  the  aspects  of  experience,  their  meaning  or 
truth  being  found  in  the  process  of  their  growth. 
No  one  detected  and  absorbed  so  fully  as  Hegel 
the  new  interest  in  history,  the  new  trend  of 
thought  and  sentiment  towards  the  past  which  we 
find,  e.g.^  in  Goethe  and  Sir  Walter  Scott,  and  which 
marks  the  transition  from  the  eighteenth  to  the 
nineteenth  century.  It  meant  the  application  of 
new  categories  in  room  of  those  of  the  "  un- 
historical  rationalism  "  of  the  preceding  age,  and  of 
this  new  interest  and  these  new  categories  there  is 
the  fullest  philosophical  interpretation  in  the  system 
of  Hegel.  His  method  is  the  genetic,  the  attitude 
of  which  in  relation  to  the  past  is  neither  that  of 
blind  submission  nor  of  negative  revolt  but  of 
sympathetic  appreciation.  It  is  not  destructive 
but  essentially  reconstructive  ;  it  aims  not  merely  to 
expound  the  "tradition  of  the  fathers,"  nor  merely 
to  expose  the  inconsistencies  of  later  teaching,  but  to 
deal  with  thoughts  and  thinkers  in  the  light  of  their 
historical  environment,  as  they  are  related  to  their 
own  age,  and  to  give  them  their  necessary  place  in 
the  one  continuous  development  in  time.  In  that 
development  there  is  something  of  the  nature  of 
a  logical  process,  the  systems  which  are  less  de- 
veloped, like  the  categories  which  are  less  adequate 

N 


194  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

and  issue  in  the  more  adequate,  leading  on  of 
necessity  to  systems  more  developed,  the  former 
being  at  once  corrected,  and  conserved  so  far  as 
they  are  true  in  the  latter.  Thus  what  is  true  in 
them  is  not  lost,  but  is  taken  up  and  transformed 
in  the  larger  truth  to  which  every  fragment  of 
truth  contributes,  and  of  which  it  forms  a  part. 
The  method  is  truly  reconstructive.  It  does  not 
adopt  without  adapting  the  inheritance  with  which 
it  deals,  It  is  critical  because  it  is  reconstructive. 
It  is  critical  in  a  way  like  that  in  which  the  blossom 
is  critical  of  the  bud,  and  the  bud  of  the  thorn  on 
which  it  was  born.  Every  new  attempt  to  attain 
the  Ultimate  is  both  a  criticism  of  the  old  and 
a  reconstruction  of  it;  every  attempt,  whether 
old  or  new,  being  a  manifestation  of  the  tendency 
to  order  and  unity  which,  according  to  Idealism, 
is  immanent  in  thought  and  things.  There  is  a 
dialectic  movement  in  life,  higher  forms  re- 
capitulating lower  forms,  and  a  dialectic  movement 
in  thought  upon  the  things  of  life,  and  neither 
is  subversive,  but  each  is  constructive  or  recon- 
structive. Such  is  the  method  of  Idealism  based 
as  Idealism  itself  upon  the  faith  in  the  ultimate 
rationality  of  the  universe.  That  reality  is  know- 
able  by  us  is  of  the  essence  of  Idealism,  the 
principle  which  dominates  and  directs  its  method, 
and  its  method  is  the  one  that  marches  with  the 
historic    spirit.      To  sum  up,   the  historic    spirit, 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM 


195 


which  is  admittedly  the  spirit  of  our  time,  and  of 
which  the  scientific  spirit  is  one  aspect,  and  the 
method  which  it  applies  to  everything  with  which 
it  deals  and  which  is  the  method  of  the  idealistic 
philosophy, — all  this  hangs  upon  the  fundamental 
principle  that  the  real  world  is  the  ideal,  and  the 
ideal  world  is  the  real,  that  in  other  words  Reality 
is  intelligible ;  the  Mind  of  the  universe  is  essen- 
tially one  with  the  mind  of  man.  Or  to  use  again 
the  poet's  burning  words — 

'*  Something  far  more  deeply  interfused, 
Whose  dwelling  is  the  light  of  setting  suns, 
And  the  round  ocean  and  the  living  air. 
And  the  blue  sky  and  in  the  mind  of  man  : 
A  motion  and  a  spirit,  that  impels 
All  thinking  things,  all  objects  of  all  thought. 
And  rolls  through  all  things." 

Now  that  is  the  Idealistic  contention,  a  conten- 
tion or  principle  which  involves  the  whole  trans- 
cendental movement  of  thought  as  well  as  the 
development  of  science  and  historic  criticism ;  and 
that  you  may  see  it  is  the  one  principle  that 
justifies  the  faith  which  is  presupposed  in  each  and 
all  of  these  activities,  one  must  needs  refer  for 
a  moment  to  Kant,  who,  so  far  at  least  as  philosophy 
is  concerned,  may  be  said  to  have  introduced  our 
present  age  and  its  prevailing  type  of  thought. 
He,  more  than  any  other,  is  the  pioneer  of  the 
time  in  which  we  live.     Modern  Agnosticism  has 


196  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

its  source  in  him  as  well  as  modern  Idealism,  and 
no  one  did  more  than  he  to  effect  the  transition 
from  the   one   to    the  other.     He  succeeded  in 
throwing  into  the  discussion  just  those  ideas  which 
showed  how  Agnosticism  might  be  corrected  and 
completed  by  Idealism,  though  he  never  succeeded 
in  overcoming  the  Dualism  involving  Agnosticism  in- 
herent in  his  theory  of  knowledge,  a  defect  which 
has  had  such  wide  results  in  later  thought.     Two 
things  Kant  shows  to  his  own  satisfaction,  (a)  that 
thought  and  sense  are  the  elements  of  knowledge, 
and  Q?)  that  thought  is  of  such  a  nature  and  sense 
of  such  a  nature  that  the  knowing  self  which  brings 
them  together  is  only  negatively  related  to  the  self  of 
pure  thought,  the  self  which  thinks  its  own  identity, 
and  is  so  limited  by  the  material  of  sense  that  it 
can  never  be  at  one  with  it.     Thus  the  self  which 
says  "  I  think"  and  the  self  which  says  '•'  I  know"  are 
separated,  and  the  world  as  known  is  but  a  world 
of  phenomena  for  ever  parted  from  the  world  of 
noumena,    the    world    as    thought.      ^'I    think" 
stands    over    and    above    "  I   know " ;  Reality    is 
sundered  from  appearance.     The  Dualism  meets  us 
everywhere  in  the  first  Critique,  and  there  you  find 
the  starting-point  of  modern  Agnosticism.     But  it  is 
in  his  brilliant  glimpses  and  insights  into  something 
deeper  than  a  Dualism  that  we  see   the  greatness 
of  Kant.     Thus  though  he  separates  the  self  of 
-bought  from  the  self  of  knowledge,  he  shows  that 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     197 

the  former  is  nothing  except  as  conditioned  by  the 
latter.  It  is  empty  but  for  the  process  of  know- 
ledge, i.e.  the  consciousness  of  self  is  nothing  apart 
from  the  consciousness  of  things.  If  that  be  so, 
then  the  elements  of  knowledge  are  constituted 
otherwise  than  as  a  Dualism  of  thought  and  sense  ; 
knowledge  ceases  to  be  merely  the  synthesis  of 
thought  upon  the  given  material  of  sense,  and  the 
unity  of  self-consciousness  becomes  a  principle 
which  turns  knowledge  of  phenomena  into  know- 
ledge of  noumena,  i.e.  Reality.  One  does  not  claim 
that  Kant  himself  attained  to  this  position,  which 
is  the  Idealistic  position,  though  it  seemed  to 
be  always  at  his  side  like  some  invisible  guide 
throwing  in  suggestions  which  some  of  his 
followers  apprehended  better  than  he  did  himself. 
Kant  himself  failed  to  find  the  common  ground 
between  phenomena  and  noumena,  appearance  and 
reality ;  he  failed  to  see  in  self-conciousness  a  unity 
great  enough  to  transcend  the  Dualism.  He  was 
still  bound  in  a  sense  to  the  old  formal  logic,  and 
persisted  in  treating  self-consciousness  as  a  pure 
abstract  unity  standing  over  against  the  process  of 
knowledge,  which  in  going  beyond  itself  to  deter- 
mine objects  is  going  away  from  itself.  But  inas- 
much as  Kant  made  the  admission  that  the  pure 
"  analytic "  unity  is  only  possible  through  the 
'^  synthetic "  unity,  or  that  the  consciousness  of 
self  is  only  possible  through  the  consciousness  of 


198  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

objects,  it  is  possible  to  work  out  the  admission 
into  the  doctrine  that  self-consciousness,  instead  of 
being  a  mere  abstract  transcendental  unity,  is 
immanent  in  knowledge,  the  source  not  of  the 
opposition  but  of  the  connexion  of  appearance  and 
reality — an  essentially  synthetic  principle  under- 
lying the  consciousness  of  objects,  and  through 
them  realising  its  unity  with  itself. 

No  Idealist  can  forget  that  Kant  was  the  first 
to  establish,  even  if  he  did  it  only  negatively,  the 
great  principle  that  the  unity  of  self  is  pre- 
supposed in  all  our  knowledge,  though  at  the 
same  time  no  Idealist  must  forget  that  according 
to  Kant  the  unity  of  self  is  so  conceived  as  that 
it  can  never  realise  its  ideal  in  the  world  of  objects. 
That  ideal  can  never  be  realised  by  knowledge 
but  only  by  faith.  Here  we  touch  the  second 
Critique,  where  the  negative  conclusion  of  the  first 
changes  into  a  positive.  Kant's  great  aim  in  the  first 
was  to  show  not  merely  that  noumena  are  un- 
knowable and  knowledge  is  only  of  phenomena, 
but  chiefly  that  our  moral  consciousness  and 
its  objects  are  raised  above  the  conditions,  the 
empirical  conditions  of  nature  and  necessity  under 
which  alone  knowledge  is  possible.  To  limit 
knowledge  to  phenomena,  said  Kant,  is  to  make 
room  for  faith.  You  cannot  know  the  real  world, 
you  can  only  think  it  and  believe  in  it.  I  cannot  pro- 
ceed any  further  in  the  second  or  third  Critique ;  it 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     199 

is  enough  to  have  seen  even  in  a  partial  way  where 
and  how  modern  agnosticism  begins  to  be,  and  how 
out  of  the  mouth  of  its  originator  himself  it  is  to  be 
corrected  and  developed  as  Hegel  and  others  have 
developed  it  through  their  deeper  apprehension  of 
the  relation  of  mind  to  things.  The  way  to  Ideal- 
ism can  be  found  only  through  a  reconstruction  of 
Kant's  Agnosticism,  such  a  reconstruction  as  we  find 
suggested  in  Caird's  great  volumes  on  Kant,  and 
which  consists  in  an  exhibition  of  the  principle  that 
the  self  in  knowing  at  all  knows  Reality,  knows  it 
in  virtue  of  the  immanence  in  its  knowing  as  in  all  its 
other  activities  of  the  Absolute  Spirit,  the  ultimate 
Reality.  "The  whole  problem  of  our  lives,  the 
problem  of  practice  no  less  than  the  problem  of 
the  theory,  is  made  insoluble  if  we  begin  by  assuming 
the  absoluteness  of  the  difference  between  the 
self  and  the  not-self,  and  only  then  ask  how  are 
we  to  mediate  between  them.  If  this  were  really 
the  question,  it  could  not  be  answered,  but  neither 
could  it  ever  have  arisen  for  us  as  a  question  at 
all.  If,  therefore,  any  one  bases  his  theory  on  a 
presupposed  dualism  of  subject  and  object,  we 
may  fairly  ask  how  he  comes  to  believe  in  it ;  and 
this  is  a  question  which  he  cannot  answer  at  all 
without  treating  the  difference  as  a  relative  one. 
But  if  it  be  so,  the  common  notion  that  the 
Absolute,  the  ultimate  reahty,  the  Divine,  or  by 
whatever  name  we  choose  to  name  it,  is  a  far-off 


200  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

something,  a  Jenseits  or  transcendental  '  thing  in 
itself  involves  a  fundamental  mistake.  And  it  is 
no  less  a  mistake  to  suppose,  with  Mr  Spencer, 
that  it  is  a  mere  indeterminate  basis  of  conscious- 
ness of  which  we  can  say  nothing  except  that  it  is. 
It  must  be  regarded  as  a  principle  of  unity  which 
is  present  in  all  things  and  beings,  and  from  which 
they  in  their  utmost  possible  independence  cannot  be 
separated.  It  must  be  conceived,  in  short,  as  that  in 
which  they  '  live  and  move  and  have  their  being.' "  ^ 
It  is  not  unfortunately  possible  here  to  show 
how  this  principle  took  shape  and  form  in  Hegel's 
Logic  and  in  the  work  of  those  who  followed  him 
and  improved  on  it.  I  think  that  in  spite  of  all  his 
faults  we  owe  to  Hegel  the  magnificent  affirmation 
of  the  Divine  Immanence  which  runs  through  his 
whole  system,  that  being  no  mere  idea  flung  out 
as  from  a  poet's  ecstasy,  but  a  principle  reached 
by  the  most  extensive  knowledge  and  the 
keenest  criticism.  In  Kant's  doctrine  God  was 
regarded  in  the  extreme  Deistic  fashion  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  as  external  to  the  life  of  man 
and  merely  as  a  means,  it  would  appear,  of  connect- 
ing happiness  and  virtue.  In  Hegel's  view,  on  the 
other  hand,  "the  throb  of  religious  emotion  in  the 
humblest  breast  has  nothing  less  than  an  infinite 
value   because    it   is,   and  in  so  far  as  it  is,    the 

1  Idealism  and  the  Theory  of  Knoivledge  (from  the  Proceedings  of  the 
British  Academy,  Vol.  I.),  by  Dr.  Edward  Caird. 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     201 

gathering  up  into  one  consciousness  of  the  whole 
meaning  of  life."  And  as  another  puts  it,  "the 
absolute  certitude  of  religion  that  man  can  work 
effectually  because  all  the  universe  is  working  with 
him,  or  in  other  words  because  God  is  working  in 
him,  can  find  its  explanation  and  defence  only  in 
a  philosophy  for  which  the  real  is  the  rational  and 
the  rational  is  the  real." 

I  am  sensible  of  leaving  a  very  great  deal  unsaid 
in  this  brief  attempt  to  expound  the  main  principle 
of  Idealism  in  its  relation  to  Agnosticism,  but  1  leave 
it  to  your  own  inquiring  minds  to  fill  up  the  silent 
gaps,  and  proceed  to  say  that  not  only  do  the  facts 
of  science  demand  a  unifying  principle  like  the 
Idealistic,  but  it  is  demanded  also  by  the  one 
effective  method  of  historical  criticism,  viz.,  the 
genetic.  Only  if  historical  criticism  can  base  itself 
on  such  a  positive  and  reconciling  principle  can  it 
deal  aright  with  the  thoughts  and  thinkers  of  the 
past.  Ritschl,  Harnack,  Sabatier,  and  they  of  that 
school  or  persuasion,  clinging  to  Kant's  negative 
theory  of  knowledge,  take  up  an  attitude  which 
is  destructive,  not  reconstructive,  the  effect  of 
which  is  that  they  do  less  than  justice  to  the 
development  of  Christian  doctrine  or  to  the 
evolution  of  the  Christian  idea.  For  an  effective 
method  has  more  to  do  than  merely  to  expose  the 
inconsistencies  and  contradictions   that  are  to  be 


202  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

found  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
in  the  different  periods  of  Christian  reflection,  or 
merely  to  condemn  them  on  the  plea  of  an 
^'essence"  or  "kernel"  of  Christianity  supposed 
to  be  primitive  and  permanent.  Rather  it  has  to 
deal  with  these  writings  and  periods  in  the  light  of 
their  historical  antecedents  and  environment,  seek- 
ing to  appreciate  both  the  lines  along  which  and  the 
limits  within  which  thinkers  and  communities  strove 
to  make  the  person  of  Jesus  intelligible  to 
themselves  and  others.  To  such  a  method,  which 
is  critical  and  reconstructive  alike,  nothing  that 
refers  to  Jesus  is  common  or  unclean,  nor  is 
anything  too  sacred  to  be  violated  by  its  touch. 
To  it  Jesus  is  not  the  monopoly  of  one  age  and  not 
of  another.  Just  as  the  question  of  the  ultimate 
nature  of  things  is  not  the  question  of  one  but  of 
every  age,  so  the  question  of  the  Person  of  Jesus 
persists  from  one  age  to  another,  a  Person  dominat- 
ing the  lives  as  well  as  a  problem  fascinating  the 
minds  of  men.  And  just  as  it  is  not  in  the  one 
answer  to  the  problem  of  philosophy  but  in  the 
many  we  find  the  dialectic  movement  of  human 
thought,  so  it  is  in  the  many  interpretations  of 
Jesus  we  catch  the  truth  and  value  of  His  Person. 
The  historical  method  does  not  set  them  up  the 
one  against  the  other  as  mutually  destructive,  nor 
does  it  try  to  make  of  them  an  artificial  harmony, 
nor  does  it  defer  to  any  one  as  though  it  were 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     203 

original  and  fixed,  and  all  the  rest  a  lapse  from 
it,  but  it  treats  them  one  and  all  as  the 
necessary  attempts  of  representative  minds  to 
express  in  forms  congenial  to  their  age  their 
attitude  to  Jesus,  to  sum  up  in  some  supreme 
conception  of  His  Person  their  appreciation  of  the 
change  wrought  in  their  experience,  and  that 
of  others,  by  the  impact  of  His  life  and 
teaching,  which  conception  may  be  said  to 
embody  their  conception  of  the  world  in  general. 
Moreover,  the  historical  method,  whilst  it  teaches 
us  to  see  in  these  conceptions  lofty  products 
of  the  human  spirit,  teaches  us  also  to  see  that  they 
are  parts  of  a  process,  and  that  therefore  we  are 
not  bound  to  them  as  to  something  final  or  infallible, 
but  must  find  for  ourselves  a  conception  of  Jesus 
in  harmony  both  with  the  growing  mind  and  the 
changing  forms  of  our  own  time.  Only  if  Jesus  had 
ceased  to  be  a  fact  seething  in  the  minds  of  men 
might  the  traditional  serve,  but  merely  as  some 
Egyptian  sarcophagus  all  finely  figured  serves  to 
enshrine  the  dead.  Manifestly  it  is  impossible  for 
us,  standing  where  we  do  in  the  process,  to  embody 
the  soul  and  goal  of  our  life  in  the  symbols,  e.g.^ 
of  early  Jewish  Christianity,  or  indeed  in  any  of 
the  forms,  priceless  though  they  be,  that  meet  us 
in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  now  but  a  common- 
place to  say  that  the  primitive  Christian  writers 
were  not  mere  reporters,  the  mere  passive  scribes 


104  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

of  unalterable  facts,  and  that  their  writings  do  not 
show  that  photographic  accuracy  which  our  fathers 
vexed  themselves  to  find  in  them ;  but  that  being 
children  of  their  age  as  well  as  followers  of  Jesus, 
they  used  the  language  and  learning  of  their 
age,  reflecting,  often  unconsciously  reflecting,  its 
various  tendencies,  interests,  oppositions,  as  they 
strove  to  reproduce  their  thoughts  of  Christ. 
Concentration  upon  His  Person  and  work — this  is 
characteristic  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  gives  to  it  its  unity,  but  there  its  unity  stops ; 
all  else  is  variety  testifying  to  the  extraordinary 
ferment  caused  by  His  coming,  and  the  sovereign 
sway  which  He  obtained  over  the  avenues  of 
thought  and  the  activities  of  life  existing  in  the 
three  great  civilisations  of  the  time.  Nothing  is 
more  significant  than  the  way  in  which  these  three 
great  civilisations,  with  all  that  was  true  in  them, 
seemed  to  draw  together  as  into  a  kind  of  vast 
combine  to  bear  His  message  and  meaning  to  the 
world.  They  were  the  three  Magi  that  brought 
their  treasures  not  only  to  His  Cradle  but  His 
Cross.  The  birth  and  death  of  such  a  Being  had 
to  be  made  intelligible,  which  was  only  possible 
through  such  forms  as  had  their  part  and  lot  in  the 
environment  of  the  time  in  which  the  early 
Christians  lived.  Men  could  not  but  speak  of 
Him  in  terms  which  were  steeped  in  the  traditions 
of  the  past  and  the  associations  of  the  present. 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     205 

And  through  these  they  had  to  body  forth  the 
fact  of  Jesus,  a  fact  which  demanded  a  rearrange- 
ment of  all  existing  moral,  social,  intellectual 
relations.  Now  as  the  same  fact  is  the  dominating 
fact  of  our  time,  necessity  is  laid  upon  us  also  to 
make  it  intelligible,  to  relate  it  to  the  other  facts 
in  the  teeming  world  of  our  experience.  And  we 
can  only  attempt  to  do  this  by  means  of  the  terms, 
categories,  symbols,  organic  to  our  age.  These 
have  all  their  history,  but  though  they  are  related 
to,  they  are  necessarily  different  from,  those  of  the 
primitive  Christian  thinkers  and  apologists.  Our 
gaze  may  be  as  firmly  fixed  on  Jesus  as  was  theirs, 
but  we  do  not  gaze  with  tbe  same  eyes  or  see 
Him  quite  as  they  saw  Him.  They  saw  Him 
swathed  about  with  miracle.  His  hands  and  feet. 
His  coming  and  His  going  encircled  with  the  halo  of 
the  marvellous ;  we  too  may  see  Him  as  a  wonder- 
worker, whose  name  is  'Wonderful,  Counsellor;' 
that  name  indeed  may  to  us  have  even  more 
of  content  and  significance  than  it  had  to  them, 
seeing  that  we  behold  Him  in  the  gathered  light  of 
twenty  centuries.  But  we  are  scarcely  able  now  to 
define  what  a  miracle  is  or  conceive  of  the  necessity 
of  interpositions  into  and  interruptions  of  the  sub- 
lime order  of  the  universe  to  prove  the  presence  of 
the  Divine  in  it,  when,  as  Idealism  tells  us — 

"  Earth's  crammed  with  heaven, 
And  every  common  bush  afire  with  God." 


2o6  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Their  view  of  God  demanded  the  miraculous. 
Untaught  in  the  law  of  evolution,  they  looked  for 
God  in  the  unexpected,  the  unusual,  the  strange, 
in  what  reversed  the  even  tenor  of  their  way  and 
their  world.  "  Howbeit,  we  know  this  man  whence 
he  is,  but  when  Christ  cometh  no  man  knoweth 
whence  he  is."  That  expresses  an  attitude,  a 
point  of  view  shared  in  both  by  those  who  opposed 
and  those  who  accepted  Christ.  It  was  as  we 
may  say  organic  to  their  time,  part  of  the  habit, 
the  furniture,  the  inheritance  of  their  minds.  And 
it  only  shows  how  all-compelling  was  the  force 
of  the  personality  of  Jesus  that  His  works 
were  naturally  lifted  up  into  the  region  of 
the  supernatural.  The  main  matter  is  the 
personality  which  so  captivated  and  convinced 
the  first  disciples  that  they  could  not  choose  but 
express  their  minds  in  tales  of  miracle — ascribing 
to  their  Lord  a  mastery  over  nature  before  which 
the  winds  and  waters  sank  to  rest,  and  "there  was 
a  great  calm,"  and  over  human  nature  so  that 
demons  and  diseases  of  the  will  were  overcome 
and  they  beheld  him  that  was  possessed  ''clothed 
and  in  his  right  mind."  We  may  still  fully  admit 
His  mastery  over  nature  as  over  human  nature  in 
and  through  the  power  of  will,  the  power  of  pure 
spirit  reigning  in  Him  and  raying  forth  and  further 
than  ever  before  or  since  into  the  obscure  regions 
of  what  we  call  the  material,  and  which,  be    it 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     207 

what   it   may,   is   organic,   plastic,    docile    to   the 
spiritual.      With    the   passing   away   of  the    old 
dualism   betwixt    matter   and   spirit,   a    vast    new 
domain   as    it   were    has    been    opened    for   the 
interaction  of  forces  whose  secrets  are  no  longer 
supposed  to  be  at  the  call  of  demons  but  under 
the   control   of    universal    law.       And   with   the 
opening   of   that    domain    the    category   of    the 
miraculous  as  such  has   been  transmuted  into  a 
category  which  is  higher  and  which  preserves  the 
truth  to  which  it  gave  expression.     The  truth  to 
which  it  gave  expression  was  that  of  the  unique 
overmastering  Personality  of  Jesus,  and  we  may 
see  that  truth  as  clearly  as,  if  not  more  clearly  than, 
those  of  the  first  age,  though  we  live  in  an  age 
remote  from  it  and  are  forced  to  use  a  category 
that  brings   the  miraculous   within    the   reign    of 
law  or  teaches  us  to  wait  for  evidence  that  will. 
By  this  method  we  lose  nothing  of  the  Personality 
that  rules  the  centuries,  but  we  gain  a  conception 
that    makes  Him   the  Jesus,   not    merely    of   the 
yesterdays,  but  of  to-day.     We  lose  nothing,  but 
gain  all. 

And  the  same  method  or  principle  of  criticism, 
which  is  essentially  a  principle  of  reconstruction, 
may  be  applied  to  the  whole  tradition,  both  of 
Christ's  first  coming  and  His  second.  From  which 
it  follows  that  we  may  preserve  all  that  the 
tradition  enshrines,  even  if  we  crave  for  a  form  or 


2o8  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

forms  more  congenial  to  our  age,  and  to  the  same 
tremendous  fact  which  meets  and  appeals  to  us 
now,  the  fact  of  the  personality  of  Christ.  The 
fkith  of  the  first  Christians  was  born  of  an 
inner  experience  gradually  wrought  in  them  by 
contact  with  the  mind  and  spirit  of  Jesus,  an 
experience  which  made  them  feel  that  the  life  He 
lived  and  imparted  to  them  was  a  divine  life. 
Not  at  first  did  they  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
He  was  the  Messiah,  but  they  had  their  own  wist- 
ful thoughts  and  imaginings  which,  as  time  wore 
on,  grew  and  gathered  into  the  confession,  "Thou 
art  the  Christ."  One  day  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  as 
we  are  told,  He  stood  unveiled  before  their  eyes, 
the  long  pent-up  secret  of  their  hope  and  the 
unadmitted  secret  of  His  soul  calling  to  each 
other  as  deep  calling  unto  deep  and  culminating 
in  a  Beatitude  to  which  we  may  say  the  whole 
tradition  and  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  indeed  the  whole  process  of  Christian 
theology,  attempt  to  give  expression,  "Thou 
art  the  Christ."  ..."  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar- 
Jonah,  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
it  unto  thee,  but  My  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 

Having  reached  that  fundamental  truth  which 
thereafter  was  burned  into  their  being  by  a 
strange  curriculum  of  events,  Gethsemane, 
Calvary,  Olivet,  Pentecost  and  after,  their 
next  and  necessary  step  was  to  apply  it  so  as 
to  account  for  and  explain  the  origin  of  Christ 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     2 


09 


and  His  death  and  destiny  alike.     And  what  if, 
because  of  the  inevitable  wear  and  tear  of  time, 
the  forms  which  they  were  bound  to  use  to  express 
their  faith,  do  not  now  avail,  does  that  mean,  as 
negative  criticism  would  have  us  to  believe,  that  they 
are  discredited  and  worthless  and  may  be  cast  as 
rubbish  to  the  void  ?     So  far  from  that  being  so, 
we,  if  we  use  our  method  aright,  will  be  able  to 
conserve  all  that  is  true  and  essential  in  them;  the 
forms  may  pass  but  the  substance  and   the   soul 
abides.   That  was  our  Lord's  own  method.    Nothing 
is  more  marked  than  the  way  in  which  He  handled 
the  ancient  law,  moving  amongst  its  hoary  forms 
with  perfect  freedom,,  selecting  and  rejecting  as  He 
required,  and  reinterpreting  the  whole  in  the  light 
of  a  new  experience.     '^  I  am  not  come  to  destroy  but 
to  fulfil."    It  is  the  method  of  a  new  order  by  which 
all  that  is  of  value  in   the  old  is  preserved  and 
readapted  to  a  new  environment.     And  the  same 
method — at    once    critical   and    reconstructive — is 
found  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  itself 
In  these  writings  as  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  the 
inner  personal  experience  is  prior  to  the  adoption 
of   the    most   befitting  forms,   and    as    might    be 
expected  they  are  not  few  but  many.     That  they 
are  many  shows  what  a  widespread  preparation, 
intellectual,  moral,  religious,  had  been  made  for  the 
advent  of  such  a  Being  as  Christ,  and  with  what  an 
imperial  sweep  the   spiritual  movement  launched 
by  Him  drew  to  itself  the  scattered  rays  of  light 
o 


210  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

in  other  lands,  and  wrought  them  like  an  aureole 
about  His  Cradle  and  His  Cross.    Thus  though  the 
tradition  of  the  Birth  drops  out  of  the  system  of 
Paul  and  vanishes  from  the  thought  of  John,  it  is 
not    absent    because    either   of    these   or    their 
audience  has  a  less  lofty  view  of  Jesus ;  rather  it  is 
possible  to  see  in  their  language  a  further  stage  of 
the  process  of  idealising,  which  is  the  process  of 
realising,  the  object  of  their  faith.     Under   the 
all-compelling  inspiration  of   the  Person  of  their 
Lord  we  see  them  feeling  out  after  the  largest, 
grandest,  most  comprehensive  categories  of  their 
own  and   other  times,  Paul  with  his   Man  from 
Heaven,  John  with  his  Logos,  bent  on  interpreting 
the    infinite    truth    and    appreciating    the    infinite 
value  of  His  Person.     But  as  we  can  see,  even 
these  their  chosen  forms  break  down  beneath  the 
stress    of  their    emotion    and    belief      The    new 
wine   bursts    the    old    bottles.       Hence   in    our 
criticism  of  the  theologies  of  Paul  and  John  we 
must  bear  in  mind  what  not  a  few  forget,  that  the 
main  thing  is  ever  the  inner  personal  experience 
adopting    and    adapting    pre-existing    ideas,    and 
filling  them  with  a  richer  content  than  was  possible 
in  the  Greek  or  Jewish  world  from  which  they 
came.      It    may  be   well    and  right  to  know   all 
we  can  of  Jewish-Greek  philosophy,  especially  of 
the  Logos  idea,  blending  as  it  does  the  highest 
rehgious  speculations   both  of  Jews  and  Greeks, 
but  we  err  if  we  imagine  that  by  understanding  it 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     211 

as  it  is  found  among  them  we  thereby  understand  it 
as  applied  to  Jesus.  It  is  inevitably  transformed  in 
the  process  of  being  applied  to  Jesus.  The  truth 
is  that  His  Person  was  too  rich,  too  vast,  too  pro- 
found for  that  idea  or  any  idea  fully  to  express. 
It  is  one  of  the  wonders  of  His  Person  that  it 
exhausts  all  forms  but  is  exhausted  by  none. 
Hence  although  at  the  time  no  form  served  so 
adequately  as  that  of  the  Logos  to  articulate  the 
supremacy  of  Christ,  yet  it  bears  too  many 
marks  of  its  dualistic  origin  to  meet  the  needs  of 
the  age  in  which  we  live.  At  the  same  time  it 
has  still  its  incalculable  worth  for  us  as  transmit- 
ting the  highest  judgment  formed  of  Jesus  in  the 
most  creative  period  of  the  Christian  era,  though  it 
does  not  claim  infallible  authority  on  that  account. 
And  we  can  appreciate  its  immense  significance  with- 
out binding  ourselves  to  it  as  an  all-sufficient  form. 
We  live  in  a  new  environment,  and  if  we  aim,  as  we 
must,  at  other  forms,  it  is  not  because  the  Jewish- 
Christian,  or  the  Jewish-Greek,  or  the  Pauline,  or 
the  Johannine  are  false,  but  simply  because  they  are 
inadequate  to  express  all  that  the  majestic  Figure 
of  the  Nazarene  has  become  and  means  to  us  after 
reigning  *'in  the  midst"  for  twenty  centuries. 
Our  attitude  to  them  is  not  destructive  but  recon- 
structive, like  Jesus'  attitude  to  the  law  of  Sinai. 
And  the  more  truly  we  appreciate  the  spirit  and 
needs  and  outlook  of  our  age  and  its  connexion 
with  that  one   immortal    Face  which  "far  from 


212  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

vanish  rather  grows,"  the  more  freely  shall  we  be 
able  to  move  among  the  ideas  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  whilst  examining  and  sifting  them  con- 
serve the  vital  elements  of  truth  within  them. 
One  could  wish  indeed  that  in  our  day  there  were 
the  fire  and  the  faith  at  hand  to  reproduce  in 
fitting  phrase  the  triumphant  soul  of  the  New 
Testament  life. 

It  would  have  been  a  welcome  task  at  this  point 
to  have  made  one's  way  through  the  theology  of 
Paul  with  its  vision  and  argument,  and  perchance 
have  seen  into  and  grasped  something  of  its 
message  to  his  age  and  ours,  and  through  the 
related  theology  of  John  with  its  wonderful  blend 
of  history  and  mysticism.  SuflEce  it  to  say  that 
great  as  the  difference  is  betwixt  the  Jesus  of  the 
fourth  Evangel  and  the  Jesus  of  the  other  three, 
there  is  nevertheless  a  fundamental  unity,  inasmuch 
as  the  process  which  under  the  inspiration  of  faith 
began  in  the  Synoptics  to  pass  beyond  the  limits 
of  actual  history  and  almost  transcended  them  in 
Paul,  returns  in  the  fourth  to  find  the  Christ  of 
faith  in  the  Jesus  of  Judea.  The  pre-existent 
Word  made  flesh  not  only  to  accomplish  a  death  of 
obedience  on  the  cross  but  to  finish  a  work  of 
service  on  the  earth — this,  as  John  presents  it, 
is  an  appreciation  of  the  fact  of  Jesus  which  not 
only  rounds  off  the  New  Testament  but  forms  the 
last  and  highest  response  of  the  faith  of  the  primi- 
tive Church  to  the  "  I  am  "  ^  of  Jesus  uttered  on  the 

1  Mark  xiv.  6i. 


IDEALISM  AND  AGNOSTICISM     213 

night  before  His  death.  Nothing  loftier,  nothing 
more  authoritative  ever  fell  from  Jesus'  lips  than 
the  "I  am."  It  "reverberates"  through  the 
New  Testament.  We  hear  it  in  the  storm  on 
the  sea  and  on  the  gentle  hillside  where  He  spake 
the  Beatitudes.  We  hear  it  at  Cassarea  Philippi 
and  in  the  Upper  Room  and  on  the  way  to 
Calvary.  The  New  Testament  is  but  a  series  of 
echoes  of  or  rather  responses  to  that  one  commanding 
claim.  All  the  Christologies  are  based  upon  it 
and  are  various  renderings  of  it.  And  we  in  our 
day  cannot  afford  to  forget  any  one  of  these 
Christologies,  these  attempts  of  Christ-uplifted 
souls  to  reproduce  the  most  ancient  Christian 
creed,  which  is  indeed  the  only  Christian  creed. 
"Thou  art  the  Christ."  We  can  neither  bind 
ourselves  to  them  nor  brush  them  aside,  for  not 
only  are  they  grey  with  age  and  sacred,  but  they 
are  the  fruits  of  that  essential  faith  which  Jesus 
hailed  when  He  said,  "  Blessed  art  thou  ...  for 
flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee, 
but  My  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  That  is  to 
say,  they  are  the  fruits  of  revelation,  and  you 
cannot  destroy  revelation :  you  must  fulfil  it. 
Hence  just  in  the  measure  in  which  we  in  our  age 
are  willing  through  purity  of  heart  and  humility 
of  mind  to  receive  the  revelation  from  above, 
appropriating  and  repeating  for  ourselves  the 
confession  of  the  first  "Thou  art  the  Christ,"  shall 
we   be   able  freely  and  not  slavishly  to  use  the 


214  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

forms  of  the  past,  to  utter  the  faith  of  the  present. 
Faith  always  speaks  in  the  present  tense,  "Thou 
art,"  and  its  forms  must  therefore  be  the  forms  of 
the  present  time.  And  the  forms  which  are  most 
congenial  to  the  time  and  the  most  capable  of 
articulating  its  faith  would  seem  to  be  those  of 
Idealism.  Christian  theology  to-day  must  work 
hand  in  hand  with  Idealism.  Surely  the  forms  of 
our  time  are  not  less  adequate  than  the  Pauline,  or 
the  Alexandrian,  or  the  Johannine  to  express  the 
creed  of  creeds.  Just  as  Christ  took  possession 
of  the  highest  thought  of  the  ancient  world,  so 
He  must  take  possession  of  the  highest  thought 
and  science  of  the  modern  world.  Our  task 
therefore  is  marked  out  for  us.  First  by  simplicity 
of  faith,  which  is  response  to  the  inward  thrill 
of  revelation,  to  see  it  and  say  it,  "  Thou  art  the 
Christ,"  and  then  in  terms,  in  forms,  in  categories 
that  reflect  the  highest  knowledge,  art,  philosophy 
of  our  day  to  express  that  faith  so  as  to  make  it  a 
rational  faith,  a  faith  reasonable  to  others  and 
furthering  righteousness.  Our  task  is  to  let  men 
see  what  the  New  Testament  saw  and  said  in 
everlasting  phrase — "  And  the  Word  became  Flesh 
and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  His  glory, 
glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full 
of  grace  and  truth." 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA,  METHOD  AND 
LIFE,  by  the  REV.  P.  CARNEGIE  SIMPSON, 
M.A.,  Glasgow. 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA,  METHOD  AND 
LIFE 

When  I  look  at  this  comprehensive  title  I  am 
somewhat  abashed,  for  what  I  am  going  to  give 
you  is  little  more  than  a  simple  and  hastily 
prepared  talk.^  The  title  indicates  three  phases 
of  Agnosticism.  In  its  modern  sense,  Agnosticism 
began  by  being  a  dogma.  Then  it  was  treated 
not  as  a  dogma  but  rather  as  a  rule  of  reason. 
Now  it  is  with  many  persons  a  view  of  life,  and 
means,  one  might  say,  a  mental  atmosphere  pro- 
ducing a  certain  type  of  character.  Spencer 
represents  it  in  the  first  doctrinal  phase.  To  him 
it  stood  as  the  article  of  a  creed  —  the  creed, 
namely,  that  the  Absolute,  or  what  we  more 
popularly  call  God,  exists,  but  is,  and  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  must  be  utterly  unknowable.  Huxley 
(who,  as  you  doubtless  know,  invented  the  term 
''  Agnosticism  ")  corrected  this,  saying  that  it  stands 
not  for  a  creed  but  for  a  method — the  method, 
namely,  of  the  rigorous  application  of  reason  in  all 

1  The  writer  of  this  paper  wishes  it  to  be  stated  that,  as  he  explained 
to  the  audience  at  the  time  of  delivery,  his  engrossment  in  the  laborious 
task  of  the  Life  of  Principal  Rainy  made  it  extremely  difficult  for  him  to 
find  any  time  to  prepare  a  lecture,  and  that  it  is  with  reluctance,  and 
only  after  repeated  requests,  that  he  has  agreed  to  its  publication  in 
this  volume.     [Ed.] 

317 


2i8  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

intellectual  questions,  going  with  it  as  far  as  it  will 
go,  but  not  pretending  that  conclusions  are  sure 
which  are  not  demonstrated.  This  is  the  second 
phase.  The  third  or  practical  phase  is  illustrated 
— worthily  illustrated,  for  of  course  there  are  many 
who  illustrate  it  unworthily — in  such  a  book  as 
Lecky's  Map  of  Life^  which  plans  out  and  discusses 
human  interests  without  any  reference  to  things 
beyond.  To  put  it  more  briefly.  As  a  dogma, 
Agnosticism  says  that  we  cannot  know  God : 
the  very  nature  of  the  Absolute  makes  it 
impossible.  As  a  rule  of  reason,  it  says  that 
we  do  not ;  there  is  not  demonstrated  evidence. 
And  as  a  practical  view  of  life,  it  seems  to  say  we 
need  not,  which  with  many  people  very  easily 
comes  to  mean  that  we  don't  care  much  whether 
we  do  or  not.  I  take  it  that  your  presence  at  a 
meeting  of  a  society  such  as  the  St  Ninian's  is  an 
indication  that  you  are  not  among  those  who  don't 
care ;  so  I  shall  say  no  more  of  this,  though  I  am 
quite  sure  that,  with  a  great  many  people,  what 
makes  them  Agnostics  or  call  themselves  so  is  not 
want  of  knowledge  but  sheer  want  of  interest. 

I 

Of  Agnosticism  as  a  dogma  that  God — one  may 
use  the  familiar  term  "  without  prejudice,"  as  the 
lawyers  say — is  and  must  be  "the  Unknowable," 
I  shall  say  little  for  two  reasons.     One  is  that  I  am 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA         219 

sure  the  philosophical  aspect  of  the  subject  was 
brilliantly  dealt  with  by  the  last  lecturer,  whom  I 
had  not  the  pleasure  of  hearing,  but  whose  ardent 
ideahsm  is  a  champagne  which  must  have  exhilarated 
the  faith  alike  of  the  drugged  dogmatist  among 
you  and  the  attenuated  Agnostic.  The  other  reason 
is  that  as  positive  doctrine  Agnosticism  has  rather 
died  out.  Men  say  now  that  they  do  not  know 
about  God;  but  to  lay  it  down  as  an  article  of  creed 
that  God  cannot  be  known  is  itself  to  contradict 
Agnosticism.  I  shall  refer  only  briefly  to  the 
Spencerian  doctrine  that  the  Absolute  Being  must 
be  the  Unknowable,  for  I  do  not  think  it  has 
retained  much  hold  in  philosophy. 

The  fact  is  that  it  was  a  desperate  attempt  to 
say  two  opposites  at  once.  The  philosophical 
basis  of  the  doctrine  is  the  relativity  of  know- 
ledge— that  ''  to  think  is  to  condition."  Is  it 
possible  to  hold  both  that  all  knowledge  is 
relative  and  at  the  same  time  that  we  have  and 
must  have  the  conception  of  the  Infinite  and 
Absolute?  We  know  only  in  relation,  and  yet 
know  that  there  is  something  which  is  not 
relative.  This  is  trying  to  eat  your  cake  and 
have  it — only  in  this  case  it  is  not  a  cake  but  only 
a  philosopher's  stone.  And  this  criticism  is  not 
answered  by  saying  that  the  Infinite  and  Absolute 
is  only  a  negative  of  the  finite  and  relative. 
Spencer     was     continually     protesting     that     the 


2  20  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Absolute  was  no  mere  negative.  It  exists. 
Indeed,  he  predicated  many  things  about  it.  It 
is  Power,  something  Hke  our  wills;  it  is  omni- 
present and  eternal ;  it  is  a  Cause,  and  creates  and 
sustains  all  things.  All  this  is  hardly  Ag- 
nosticism. Mr  Fiske  has  indeed  worked  it  out 
into  a  kind  of  theism.  The  fact  is  that  if  God  be 
the  utterly  unknowable,  then  we  should  be  un- 
conscious even  of  His  (or  its)  existence ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  our  knowledge  be  entirely  limited  by 
relativity,  we  should  not  be  conscious  of  that 
limit.  The  Absolute  is  unknowable,  yet  we  know 
it  is  unknowable :  to  think  is  to  condition,  yet  we 
think  of  the  unconditioned — this  is  that  "aye 
and  no"  which  Shakspere  says  is  ''bad  theology." 
But,  even  if  in  form  it  were  not  self-con- 
tradictory, the  doctrine  is,  at  bottom,  a  false  view 
or  what  the  Absolute  or  God  is.  Is  it  the  true 
view  of  the  Supreme  and  Absolute  Being  to  say  it 
is  that  which  is  out  of  all  relativities  of  exist- 
ence? Mere  abstract  being  is  the  most  ele- 
mentary and  the  poorest  of  all  categories.  Even  a 
stone  has  extension  in  addition  to  being.  Is  not 
the  true  view  of  the  Supreme  Being  that  it  (or 
He)  is  not  that  which  is  outwith  all  relations  but 
that  which  includes  and  exhausts  and  transcends 
them.f^  Thus  we  can  never  know  God  fully. 
There  will  always  be  an  Agnosticism — even  within 
the  religion  of  the  Christian  revelation.     We  can- 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA         221 

not  by  searching  find  out  God.  As  I  have  said, 
God  exhausts  and  transcends  all  our  categories. 
But,  as  I  have  also  said,  God  includes  them.  He 
is  not  unrelated  to  existences  as  we  know  it.  He 
is  that  in  which  all  things  live  and  move  and  have 
their  being.  Spencer's  invitation  to  us  to  view  his 
abstract  category  or  Absolute  Being,  denuded  of 
all  reality  of  existence  as  we  know  it,  with  '^  awe  " 
and  "wonder,"  has  probably  not  produced 
response  in  a  single  human  soul.  The  God  of  the 
Pantheist — rich  in  all  the  infinitude  of  existent 
reality — is  a  comprehensible  object  of  adoration ; 
but  the  God  of  the  Agnostic — de-anthropomor- 
phised,  de-mundanised,  denuded  of  all  qualities — 
is  the  poorest  thing  that  was  ever  oifered  to  the 
religious  instinct  of  man,  in  the  way  of  a  God. 

If  I  do  not  dwell  longer  on  Agnosticism  as  a 
positive  article  of  creed,  it  will  be  understood  that 
this  is  only  from  the  need  for  brevity  :  it  does  not 
mean  any  want  of  respect  to  the  memory  of  so 
comprehensive  and  independent  a  thinker  as 
Herbert  Spencer.  But,  in  our  day,  it  is  not  the 
positive  doctrine  that  God  must  be  the  unknow- 
able that  most  concerns  us,  and  I  pass  to  the 
second  phase  which  I  have  named. 

II 

Huxley  (who,  as  I  have  said,  was  the  inventor 
of  the  term  Agnosticism)  says  it  is  not  a  dogmatic 


22  2  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

assertion  of  ignorance  about  certain  matters  but  a 
method  of  attaining  or  testing  knowledge.     This 
method  he   describes    as   follows :  "  positively — in 
matters  of  the  intellect,  follow  your  reason  as  far 
as  it  will  take  you,  without  regard  to  any  other 
consideration  :  negatively — do  not  pretend  that  con- 
clusions are   certain   which  are   not   demonstrated 
or  demonstrable."     In  a  word,  the  Agnostic  rule  of 
reason  is  the  strict  limitation  of  belief  to  what  is 
demonstrated  by  rational  evidence,  and  from  this 
follows  the    duty    of   dismissing    all    prejudices — 
either  affirmations  or  denials — which  interfere  with 
this  intellectual    rule.     As    a   general   proposition 
this  would   carry  assent  from  every  liberal  mind. 
Huxley's  application  of  it  is   the  essential  thing. 
For  him  it  meant  an  attitude  of  reasoned  ignorance 
about  everything  beyond  the  sphere  of  sense-per- 
ception, and  therefore  the  rejection  of  any  belief  in 
what  is  more  than   empirical,  any  belief  in   that 
which  is  beyond  phenomena.       This  is  obviously  a 
much  purer  and  more  justifiable  agnosticism  than 
the  positive  doctrine  concerning  God  as   the   un- 
knowable which  Spencer  gave  us.     It  is  indeed  a 
frequently  salutary  admonition   to  dogmatism  and 
traditionalism  in  theology  or  in  any  other  subject. 
But  there  are  one  or  two  remarks  which  may  be 
made  upon  it  in  relation  both  to  science  and  to 
religion. 

The  man  of  science  who  professes  to  apply  it 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA         223 

as  Huxley  did,  maintaining  a  reasoned  ignorance 
about  everything  beyond  phenomena,  yet  departs 
from  it  every  day  in  his  scientific  investigation. 
What  is  the  very  postulate  of  science?  Is  it  not  that 
nature  will  be  found  to  be  a  cosmos  ?  that  there  is 
law  and  order  in  the  world?  that  things  are  not 
capricious  and  insane  but  rational  ?  Science  exists 
only  on  that  footing.  But  is  that  a  matter  within 
sense-perception  ?  We  have  no  empirical  know- 
ledge of  a  universal  world-order.  The  fact  that 
such-and-such  an  event  has  been  seen  to  follow 
such-and-such  another,  which  is  all  sense-percep- 
tion gives  us  or  can  give  us,  is  not  demonstrated 
proof,  such  as  the  Agnostic,  such  as  reason  demands, 
that  the  universe  is  rationally  trustworthy.  Yet 
this  rational  trustworthiness  of  the  universe  is  the 
very  beginning  and  basis  of  science.  It  is  not 
merely  a  working-hypothesis  which  science  may 
employ  :  it  is  that  without  which  science  could  not 
be.  The  Agnostic  method  then  presupposes  what 
may  most  truly  be  called  an  act  not  of  rational 
demonstration,  but  an  act  of  faith.  In  religion 
the  Apostle  says  the  just  live  by  faith ;  but  in 
science  a  man  must  live  by  faith  whether  he  be 
just  or  not  just,  and  even  if  he  be  an  Agnostic. 
Let  this  be  clear.  We  are  told  by  an  eminent 
man  of  science  to  dismiss  all  that  is  not  demon- 
strated or  demonstrable  by  reason  in  empirical 
experience ;  but   the   very   basis  of  science  itself 


224  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

is  not  so  demonstrated  or  demonstrable.  If,  then, 
science  must,  as  an  act  of  faith,  assume  the 
rational  trustworthiness  of  the  universe,  why 
should  we  stop  here  ?  Why  not,  if  need  be,  go 
on  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  trustworthiness  of 
the  universe,  which  is  what  religion  does  when  it 
asks  us  to  believe  in  God? 

So,  then,  I  turn  to  consider  the  relation  of  this 
Agnostic  rule  of  reason  to  religion.  Here,  the 
great  thing  to  be  said  is  that  the  Agnostic  point  of 
view  does  at  once  an  immense  service  to  religious 
(by  which  I  may  here  be  allowed  to  mean 
Christian)  faith  by  putting  out  of  court  all  a  priori 
objections.  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  denied  that 
the  strongest  difficulties  that  most  people  have 
about  certain  things  in  Christianity  are  antecedent 
objections — not  so  much  that  the  evidence,  fairly 
looked  at,  is  inadequate,  as  that  the  idea  of  the 
thing  is  incredible.  Take,  for  example,  the 
Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  great  difficulty 
about  believing  that  is  not  the  insufficiency  of  the 
historical  evidence.  The  historical  evidence,  when 
one  really  studies  the  personality  and  influence  and 
words  and  consciousness  of  Jesus  is  such  as  to 
make  it  extraordinarily  difficult — really  impossible 
— to  reckon  Him  merely  as  a  man  among  men. 
The  real  difficulty  is  the  utter  incredibility  of  the 
idea  of  an  incarnation  of  the  Infinite  God,  Who 
transcends  all  in  the   universe,  appearing  in   the 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA         225 

guise  of  a  Galilean  peasant.  That  is  the  real 
difficulty.  But  the  Agnostic  rule  of  reason  com- 
mands you  to  dismiss  it.  The  question  is  not  one 
of  a  priori  likelihood  or  even  credibility  :  it  is  one 
of  evidence.  But  how  few  Agnostics  live  up  to 
their  rule  in  this  matter !  I  take  as  an  illustration 
the  man  of  science  whom  we  must  all  name 
with  reverence — Charles  Darwin.  Romanes  said 
Darwin  was  the  most  pure  in  his  Agnosticism  of 
all  scientific  men — pure,  that  is  to  say,  in  having 
no  pre-judging  dogmas,  but  simply  searching  for 
and  recording  the  facts.  Yet  if  you  read  in 
Darwin's  life  how  he  drifted  away  from  Christian 
faith,  you  find  that  what  influenced  him  was  not 
an  impartial  study  of  the  fact  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
the  finding  of  that  inadequate,  but  a  feeling  of  the 
a  priori  incredibility  of  the  Supreme  Being  mani- 
festing Himself  in  such  wise  and  to  such  a  small 
part  of  His  creation.  Surely  Darwin  here  failed 
in  the  Agnostic  attitude  as  regards  Christianity, 
the  attitude  maintained  by  none  more  strictly  than 
himself  in  science.  It  is  unlikely,  it  is  a  priori 
incredible  if  you  like,  that  Almighty  God  should 
be  incarnate  in  this  Galilean  peasant.  But  is  it 
not  as  unlikely,  is  it  not  a  priori  as  incredible,  that 
humanity  with  all  its  capacities  of  mind  and  heart, 
and  all  its  intellectual  and  moral  achievement, 
should  be  the  product  of  an  unconscious  cell  or  a 
brute   anthropoid    ape?     Yet   no   thought    about 


226  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

either  the  credibility  or  the  incredibility  of  it 
deterred  this  great  man  of  science  from  the  most 
impartial,  the  most  painstaking,  the  most  devout 
(for  truly  one  may  call  Darwin's  work  devout) 
study  of  the  facts.  It  is  the  same  unprejudiced, 
impartial,  earnest  study  of  the  fact  of  Jesus  Christ 
which  more  than  anything  else  Christianity  asks 
for,  and  men  influenced  by  the  Agnostic  method 
should  be  the  first  to  give  it.  On  Agnostic 
principles  there  should  be  an  end  to  such  objec- 
tions to  things  in  Christian  belief  as  Hume's 
argument  against  miracles :  the  question  is  one  of 
evidence.  I  think  candid  and  intelligent  men  are 
more  and  more  coming  to  see  that.  Certainly 
Huxley — a  candid  and  an  intelligent  man  if  ever 
there  was  one — saw  it  and  said  it.  He  had  not,  he 
declared,  "  the  slightest  objection  to  oiFer  a  priorV 
to  the  creeds.  ^4t  would  be  a  great  mistake,"  he 
added,  ^'  to  think  that  the  Agnostic  rejects  theology 
because  of  its  puzzles  and  wonders :  he  rejects  it 
simply  because  in  his  judgment  there  would  be  no 
evidence  sufficient  to  warrant  the  theological  pro- 
positions, even  if  they  related  to  the  commonest 
and  most  obvious  every-day  propositions."  These 
are  Huxley's  words,  and,  whatever  maybe  thought 
of  them  as  a  just  statement  of  the  facts  regarding 
Christian  evidence,  they  certainly  mean  this — that  a 
priori  objections  to  the  difficulty  or  impossibility 
of  Christian  belief  are  to  be  dismissed  and   the 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA         227 

facts  faced  without  prejudice  or  favour.  This  is 
the  immense  contribution  of  the  Agnostic  rule  to 
Christian  faith.  "  Come  and  see  "  is  not  more  the 
invitation  of  the  Christian  gospel  than  it  is  the 
rule  of  the  scientific  reason. 

When  will  scientific  men  deal  frankly  and  fully 
with  the  fact  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  very  rule  of 
scientific  reason  calls  them  to  do  ?  I  take  a  single 
illustration,  for  I  have  not  time  to  dwell  on  this. 
Take  ethical  science.  What  as  a  simple  matter  of 
pure  historical  fact  has  been  the  greatest  force 
influencing  human  conduct  for  good?  What  more 
than  anything  else  has  reformed  that  which  is  the 
subject  of  ethical  science — namely,  character?  I 
say  without  fear  of  contradiction  that  it  has  been, 
not  merely  the  recorded  teaching,  but  the  personal 
spiritual  influence  of  Jesus  Christ  in  millions  of 
lives — or,  if  that  form  of  it  is  questioned,  what 
these  millions  regarded  as  His  personal  spiritual 
influence.  What  book  on  the  science  of  ethics 
mentions  it?  I  submit  there  is  something  un- 
scientific here — as  unscientific  as  it  would  be  to 
discuss  the  forces  of  natural  phenomena  and  not 
mention  electricity.  Ethical  teachers  will  discuss 
Hedonism,  Utilitarianism,  and  so  on  without  end : 
but  I  repeat,  as  a  simple  matter  of  fact,  the  potent 
ethical  fact  and  factor  has  been  a  certain  alleged 
personal  spiritual  authority  and  influence,  and 
to    ignore  it  is  to  be   unscientific   in  relation    to 


228  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

facts  more  than  to  be  irreligious  in  relation  to 
faith. 

.  Now  I  cannot  possibly  here  go  on  to  argue 
what  a  frank  and  unprejudiced  facing  of  the  fact 
of  Christ  leads  to  as  regards  the  knowledge  of  God. 
Will  you  allow  me  to  state,  in  little  more  than  a 
few  sentences,  the  two  certainties,  as  they  seem 
to  me,  to  which  it  brings  us  ? 

One  is  the  historical  reality  of  the  picture  of 
Jesus  Christ.  I  mean  that  I  think  that  no  man 
can  really  let  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament 
make  frank  and  fair  appeal  on  the  mind  and  heart 
and  conscience  without  realising  that  this  is  no 
fancy  portrait.  I  hold  no  rigid  views  about  the 
infallible  accuracy  of  every  detail  of  the  narrative. 
The  fringes  of  the  picture  may  be  frayed  by 
criticism  without  any  great  harm  being  done. 
But  the  substantial  truth  of  the  person,  Jesus 
Christ,  impresses  itself  irresistibly.  Here  is  a 
real  figure  with  whom  every  sincere  mind  and 
life  must  really  reckon.  You  can  neither  deny 
Him  nor  honestly  get  away  from  Him.  A  fair 
and  frank  facing  of  the  fact  of  Jesus  Christ  makes 
Him  a  great  reality  for  life  and  conscience  with 
which  you  must  come  to  terms  both  intellectually 
by  asking  who  He  is,  and  also  morally  by  settling 
what  you  are  going  to  be.  On  a  hundred  ante- 
cedent grounds  it  is  easy  to  evade  this.  But  if 
a  man  frankly  and  earnestly  and  unprejudicedly 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA         229 

faces  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament,  I  think 
this  historical  and  spiritual  reality  of  Jesus  is 
irresistible. 

The  second  thing  is  that  when  a  man  goes  on 
with  continued  frankness  and  earnestness  and  un- 
prejudicedness  to  give  an  intellectual  and  moral 
answer  to  this,  he  finds  himself  taking  a  relation 
to  Jesus  Christ  which  is  quite  indistinguishable 
from  the  attitude  he  would  take  to  a  revelation 
of  the  unseen  and  unknown  God.  He  finds 
Christ  becoming  far  more  than  his  teacher.  He 
finds  Christ  identical  with  the  ultimate  word  of 
faith  and  morals.  Take  a  single  concrete  example. 
One  of  the  ultimate  ethical  thoughts  about  God — 
if  there  be  a  God  who  watches  our  lives — is  that 
He  is  our  Judge,  and  that  all  our  lives  are  re- 
sponsible to  Him  and  stand  and  fall  according  to 
His  view  of  them.  We  find  that  our  fives  do 
stand  or  fall,  and  that  what  judges  them  is  Christ's 
presence  over  against  them.  We  find  His  law  as 
ultimate  as  right  itself.  We  find,  in  a  word,  that 
we  cannot  distinguish,  in  any  spiritual  sense, 
between  this  real  figure  and  the  Unseen  God. 
He  has  a  spiritual  value  for  us  of  God.  I  am 
not  just  now  arguing  for  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 
I  am  simply  stating  what  an  unprejudiced  facing 
of  the  fact  of  Jesus  Christ  seems  to  me  inevitably 
to  bring  in  its  train. 

Start,   then,  I  say  from  the  Agnostic  method. 


230  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

It  is  the  Christian  method.  Lay  aside  a  priori 
discussions  about  the  antecedent  incredibility  of 
revelation  or  miracle  or  anything  else.  Do  to 
the  fact  of  Christ  as  you  would  to  the  facts  of 
nature.  You  will  (so  at  least  I  feel)  find  it  real, 
not  a  figment  of  the  first  or  second  century. 
You  will  find  it  a  little  too  real  for  your  entire 
moral  comfort.  You  will  find,  unless  you  are 
going  to  lay  aside  the  spirit  of  honest  inquiry, 
that  you  must  take  up  an  attitude  to  it  in  mind 
and  in  conscience  and  in  life.  And  you  will  find 
(so,  again,  at  least  I  feel)  that  the  attitude  you 
must  take  is  not  other  than  you  would  have  to 
take  to  a  very  word  from  the  unseen  and  un- 
known God.  I  do  not  on  some  ecclesiastical 
principle  of  authority  seek  to  impose  this  on  you. 
On  the  principle  of  the  scientific  rule  of  reason, 
I  ask  you  to  investigate  it. 

This  is,  I  think,  the  Christian  way  of  dealing 
with  Agnosticism  about  God.  It  is  not  by  a  mere 
philosophy — idealistic  or  any.  other.  It  is  not  a 
different  philosophy  the  Agnostic  (I  do  not  now 
speak  of  Spencerianism)  needs  :  it  is  data.  G.  H. 
Lewes  dismissed  religion  from  the  region  of 
verifiable  knowledge  because,  he  says,  "it  con- 
fesses its  inability  to  furnish  knowledge  with  any 
available  data."  The  Christian  religion  furnishes 
knowledge  with  the  biggest  fact  in  all  history  and 
the  fact  of  Jesus  Christ.  Here  is  not  merely  a  new 
philosophy  to  write  a  review  about.     Here  is  a 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA         231 

fact,  a  figure,  a  force  to  be  faced  intellectually 
and  morally.  You  say  you  cannot  find  or  know 
God.  Find  and  face  and  know  and  obey  Jesus 
Christ.  There  is  something  at  least  answerable, 
doable.  Your  Agnosticism  does  not  apply  here. 
No  doctrine  of  the  unknowable  need  hinder  you 
here.  And  your  mental  and  moral  answer  to  the 
real  fact  of  Jesus  Christ  is,  I  have  tried  to  say, 
an  answer  to  the  question  of  the  soul  concerning 
the  unseen  and  unknown  God.  It  is  nothing  that 
I  say  this  to  you.  My  saying  it  carries  no  weight 
to  your  minds.  I  do  not  desire  that  it  should. 
The  greatest  teacher  of  religion  the  world  has 
ever  seen  says  it.  It  is  Jesus  Christ  who  says  of 
Himself,  "  I  am  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life ; 
no  man  cometh  to  the  Father  but  by  Me,"  and 
^'He  that  followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in  dark- 
ness." Do  not  dismiss  these  as  mere  texts. 
They  are  the  distinct  directions  of,  I  repeat,  the 
greatest  teacher  of  religion  the  world  has  ever 
seen.  They  are  the  counsel  of  Jesus  to  the 
'  Agnostic. 

Ill 

I  do  not  apologise  for  speaking  in  this  strain, 
though  it  may  seem  to  you  that  some  of  these 
observations  would  be — to  use  Charles  Lamb's 
translation  of  propiora  sermoni — "  properer  to  a 
sermon."  I  do  not  apologise,  for  I  claim  the 
same  right  to  ask  you  to  investigate  the  fact  of 


232  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Jesus  Christ  as  any  lecturer  on  history  or  science 
might  ask  you  to  investigate  an  historical  period 
or  a  scientific  fact.  But  I  shall  not  say  more 
than  a  word  or  two  on  the  third  or  practical 
phase  of  Agnosticism  which  I  named  at  the  outset. 
Our  great  clanger  is  an  Agnostic  scheme  of  life — 
a  scheme  of  life  not  necessarily  bad  or  unworthy, 
but  without  any  account  taken  in  it  of  God, 
especially  as  He  is  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Now  I  am  not  going  to  preach.  I  shall  say  just 
two  things — one  about  myself  and  the  other 
about  people  in  general.  For  myself,  I  find  I 
can  live  a  worthy  and  an  honest  life  just  in  so 
far  as  I  do  make  this  fact  of  Jesus  Christ  a  real 
and  a  determining  element  in  it.  I  am  not 
judging  others  ;  but  I  find  that  myself.  A  hfe 
that  ignored  Him  would  be  for  me — I  don't  say 
necessarily  an  immoral  life — but  a  life  with  poorer 
principles  and  lower  ideals  than  even  at  present  I 
possess.  The  other  remark  I  make  about  a 
scheme  of  life  that  never  really  faces  up  to  these 
things,  and  particularly  to  that  one  great  Fact,  is 
that  it  is  not  the  scheme  of  life  in  which  the 
greatest  and  best  service  of  the  world  has  been 
done.  When  you  choose  your  creed,  you  choose 
your  company.  Perhaps  you  say  to  me  you  don't 
want  to  be  in  the  company  of  the  orthodox 
humbugs  who  are  to  be  found  in  numbers  in  the 
professing  Christian  Church.  I  don't  ask  you  to 
be.     But  I  ask  you  which  is  the  nobler  company 


AGNOSTICISM  IN  DOGMA         233 

— those  whose  lives  studiously  shut  out  all 
reference  to  the  authority  and  meaning  for  faith 
and  character  of  Jesus  Christ  or  those  who  make 
Him  their  Master  and  Teacher  and  Saviour? 
Putting  aside  exceptional  instances  on  either  side, 
which  is  the  nobler  company?  After  all  it  is 
faith  in  God,  and  not  unbehef ;  it  is  following  Jesus 
Christ  and  not  ignoring  Him,  that  inspires  and 
develops  character.  The  sham  thing  is  nauseous 
— corruptio  optimi  pessima — but  the  real  thing  is 
noble.  Join  at  least  this  Church — the  company 
of  those  who  find  life  has  many  unsolved  mysteries 
(and  ever  find  its  mystery  deepen  as  it  goes  on) 
but  find  also  that  the  fact  of  Jesus  Christ  really 
and  earnestly  and  unprejudicedly  worked  out  in 
mind  and  conscience,  means  what  is  quite  indis- 
tinguishable from  a  word  of  God,  and  means  what 
is  quite  clearly  the  truest  kind  of  life. 

I  am  deeply  conscious  of  the  utter  inadequacy 
of  these  observations — put  together,  as  they  have 
had  to  be,  under  circumstances  of  much  pressure 
— but  I  cannot  now  add  to  them.  I  venture  to 
close  by  simply  stating  my  own  personal  experience 
in  regard  to  religious  knowledge,  which  is  that, 
as  life  goes  on,  the  sense  of  Agnostic  ignorance 
and  of  Christian  certitude  both  increase.  What 
I  mean  is  this.  There  are  many  things  about 
which  one  used  to  be  (if  you  will  pardon  the 
colloquialism)  "  cock-sure,"  which  now  seem 
immeasurable    and    unsearchable,    and    of  which 


234  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

the  knowledge  is  "too  high"  so  that  we  "cannot 
attain  unto  it."  I  think  a  man  must  become  less 
of  a  dogmatist  as  he  grows  older.  Our  systems 
are,  as  the  poet  justly  calls  them,  ''our  little 
systems,"  and  truth,  even  what  we  call  "  simple 
truth,"  is  so  vast.  This  need  not  make  us  sceptical, 
but  it  should  make  us  humble.  It  should  make  all 
of  us  that — the  theologian,  who  should  remember, 
as  I  have  said,  that  there  is  an  Agnosticism  along 
with  even  revealed  religion,  and  also  the  scientist, 
who  should  remember  that  if  we  speak  of 
"humble  faith"  we  should  have  humble  unfaith 
too.  Let  us  all  have  the  temper  which  does  not 
over-dogmatise.  But  I  find  it  quite  consistent 
with  this  to  hold  with  increasing  certainty  some 
things  or  rather  one  thing.  This  one  thing  is 
that,  historically  and  spiritually,  there  is  in  the  fact 
of  Jesus  Christ  that  which,  in  the  most  real  and 
absolute  sense,  is  a  light  direct  from  God  and 
recognisable  as  such  by  the  honest  mind.  And 
I  find  it  consistent  with  all  reason  not  to  refuse 
to  look  at  but  to  follow  steadily  and  resolutely 
after  that  light,  even  though — indeed  all  the  more 
because — it  shines  in  the  midst  of  a  darkness  which 
it  does  not  wholly  dispel. 

"  God  stooping,  shows  sufficient  of  His  light 
For  us  in  the  dark  to  rise  by." 


THE    TRUE    RATIONALISM 
By  the  Rev.  FATHER  POWER,  S.J.,  B.A.,  Edinburgh. 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM 

T6  ^pyov  avdptJTTOv  ypvxns  iv^pyeia  Kark  \byov. 

— Aristotle,  Eth.  Nic.  i.  6. 

Foreword 

This  Lecture  was  somewhat  hurriedly  put  together 
after  a  long  illness — an  extenuating  circumstance* 
which  may  be  charitably  thought  to  account  for 
some  of  its  defects  and  omissions. 

Throughout  its  composition,  I  have  had  before 
my  eyes  and  mind  the  figures  of  Aristotle,  founder 
of  the  Peripatetic  school  of  philosophy,  and  his 
great  Christian  commentator,  St  Thomas  Aquinas. 
It  has  long  been  my  ambition  to  reproduce,  how- 
ever inadequately,  some  of  the  features  of  these 
two  illustrious  Rationalists,  in  the  conviction  that 
their  account  of,  and  plea  for,  the  headship  of 
human  Reason,  were  never  more  sorely  needed 
than  in  an  age  when  the  many  derivatives  of  the 
word  Ratio  (Reason)  are  in  constant  and  vigorous 
circulation,  while  the  faculty  itself  is  left  unre- 
garded, unanalysed  and  undisciplined,  to  the 
detriment,  if  not  the  ruin,  of  philosophy  and 
religion  alike. 

237 


238  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

Introduction 

To  lull  all  fears  to  rest  and  as  part  requital  of 
the  great  favour  you  have  done  me,  I  think  I 
can  promise  that  I  shall  not  overpass  the  philo- 
sophical boundaries  of  my  title,  nor  raid  the 
realm  of  Theology,  nor  trouble  you  with  hard 
sayings  touching  Divine  Revelation  or  the  Super- 
natural. Thus  I  hope  to  confine  myself  to  the 
elementary  psychology  which  is  the  basis  of 
Rationalism. 

Some  apology  may  be  due  for  a  title  which 
seems  to  imply  that  there  are  two  distinct  forms  of 
Rationalism,  one  true,  the  other  false.  Rationalism, 
like  Christianity,  has  no  plural.  False  Rationalism 
is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  implying  that  a  man 
may  follow  the  guidance  of  the  light  of  reason, 
follow  it  irrationally,  and  be  landed  in  unreason. 
There  are  true  and  false  Rationalists,  as  there  are 
true  and  false  Christians :  that  is  to  say,  there  are 
people  who  take  a  good  name  in  vain  ;  nevertheless 
the  thing  underlying  the  name  is  one,  and  not 
two.  When,  then,  in  the  course  of  my  lecture, 
I  am  found  to  prefix  the  epithet  ^'  true "  or 
"  false  "  to  Rationalism,  you  will  understand  that 
in  the  first  case,  I  plead  guilty  to  an  innocent 
tautology,  and  in  the  second,  I  am  indulging  in  a 
fafon  de  purler  which,  though  not  logical,  is 
deservedly  popular. 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM  239 

On  this  difficult  subject  I  shall  do  my  best  to 
be  clear.  I  am  an  old  schoolmaster,  not  a  GifFord 
lecturer,  and  I  fail  to  see  why  it  is  incumbent  on 
me,  when  addressing  an  educated  audience,  to 
dofF  the  week-day  style  which  goes  down  with 
my  collier-friends,  and  to  don  the  Sunday  clothes 
of  a  stiff  and  stilted  phraseology.  I  may  have 
two  suits  of  clothes,  but  I  have  only  one  kind  ot 
style  ;  for  men  are  the  same  everywhere  and  I  am 
everywhere  the  same  with  men. 

The  Rationalism  I  shall  try  to  expound  has  had 
the  start  of  the  Rationalism,  say,  of  the  Rationalist 
Press  Association,  by  about  2200  years,  and  has 
drawn  to  it  the  greatest  intellects  of  the  world 
from  Aristotle  through  St  Thomas  Aquinas  down 
to  the  little  group  of  Oxford  scholars  who  are  now 
engaged  on  a  new  edition  of  the  Opera  Omnia  of 
the  founder  of  the  Peripatetic  school.  I  am  old- 
fashioned  enough  to  believe  that  this  long  duration 
through  the  centuries  and  this  wide-spread  influence 
exercised  over  the  choicest  and  weightiest  of 
medieval  minds,  establish  some  sort  of  presump- 
tion that  the  old  system  is  at  least  as  worthy  of 
investigation  as  the  new.  Not  even  to  us  of  the 
twentieth  century  has  antiquity  lost  all  its  charms. 
The  only  quarrel  I  have  with  the  University  of 
Glasgow — a  quarrel  much  accentuated  in  the  case 
of  the  University  of  Edinburgh — is,  that  it  is  not 
older  than  the  Papal  Charter  dated  7th  January 


240  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

1450.  Perhaps  you  would  all  be  better  pleased 
if  your  alma  mater  had  as  many  grey  hairs  on  her 
head — or  should  I  say  was  as  bald-headed  ? — as 
Paris  or  Bologna  or  Oxford,  or  even  St  Andrews. 
The  younger  the  baby,  the  more  beautiful  it  is.  So 
say  some  mothers.  The  older  the  institution,  the 
more  venerable  it  is.  So  say  I.  But  we  may  both 
be  wrong — the  mothers  and  L  Anyhow,  what  I 
call  the  True  Rationalism  of  the  Aristotelian 
school  once  sat  in  the  chairs  of  Glasgow  University 
in  pre-Reformation  and  post-Reformation  days, 
figures  largely  in  the  works  of  Robert  Baillie,  the 
very  capable  and  very  Calvinistic  Principal  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  and,  for  aught  I  know,  is  still 
enthroned  within  these  walls.  In  such  company  I 
am  not  ashamed  to  own  myself  a  Rationalist  of  the 
ancient  type. 


I.  Rationalism  or  Foolishness  .? 

Before  we  come  to  a  scientific  definition  of 
Rationalism,  let  me  call  attention  to  this  point — if 
we  are  not  Rationalists,  we  are  fools.  But  there  is 
no  one  here  deserving  of  this  reproach.  There- 
fore all  of  us  here  are  Rationalists.  That  is  a 
syllogism  beloved  of  the  Peripatetics ;  it  is  also  a 
comfort  to  this  assembly.  Between  Rationalism 
and    Foolishness    there    is    no   tertium   quid.     In 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM  241 

human  nature  qua  ^  human  nature,  the  only  light 
is  reason.  Where  that  is  not  given  at  all,  even  in 
germ,  you  have  not  men  before  you,  but  lower 
animals.  When  the  use  of  that  faculty  which 
makes  a  man  a  man,  is  impeded  by  physiological 
or  pathological  conditions,  we  are  imbeciles.  If  we 
extinguish  that  light  ourselves  by  a  course  of 
physical  or  psychical  excess,  we  are  self-made 
lunatics,  pro  rata^  i.e.  in  proportion  to  the  mental 
area  which  we  empty  of  light  or  invest  with  dark- 
ness. Rationalists  or  IrrationaUsts  we  must  all  be 
in  every  moment  of  conscious  or  deliberate  action. 
If  any  course  of  speculative  thought  is  seen  to  be 
irrational,  we  are  obliged,  in  deference  to  the  law 
of  reason,  not  to  enter  that  path,  or  to  quit  it  if 
entered.  If  we  do  not,  we  are,  I  shudder  to  say 
it,  intellectual  fools,  pro  rata.  Similarly,  if  in  the 
moral  sphere,  a  course  of  action  is  known  by  the 
light  of  reason  to  be  unreasonable,  we  are  con- 
strained to  leave  that  action  undone,  and  if  we 
persist  in  doing  it,  we  are  moral  fools — again  pro 
rata. 

To  come  to  particulars.  If  Christianity  is 
shown  by  reason  to  be  irrational  or  anti-rational, 
it  is  your  duty  and  mine  to  abandon  it  to- 
morrow or  perhaps  to-night.  Again,  if  ultra- 
SociaUsm  commends  itself  to  calm  and  dispassionate 

^  Qua,  a  favourite  relative  particle  with  the  schoolmen.  It  is  the 
Aristotelian  17,  and  is  getting  into  English  books,  and  even  into  leaders 
in  The  Glasgeiv  Herald, 

Q 


242  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

reason  as  the  sole  and  sufficient  remedy  for  all 
social  ills,  we  must,  as  consistent  Rationalists, 
evacuate  our  present  position,  go  over  in  a  body- 
to  the  Glasgow  Socialists,  and  embrace  the 
Manifesto  which  was  painted  with  the  flaming 
brush  of  Confiscation  as  recently  as  November  last. 
The  one  great  human  force  to  keep  us  in  the 
old  paths  of  the  Faith  is  Rationalism.  The  one 
impelling  power  to  necessitate  our  migration  to 
opposite  fields  of  thought  and  action  is  Rationalism. 
If  man  is  a  rational  animal,  we  cannot  get  out  of 
Rationalism  any  more  than  we  can  get  out  of  our 
skin. 

I  take  it,  then,  we  are  all  Rationalists,  and  our 
determination  to  remain  so  is  strengthened  by  the 
consideration  that  the  type  of  the  non-Rationalist  is 
the  bom  idiot,  and  the  type  of  the  anti-Rationalist 
is — Mr  Robert  Blatchford. 


II.  Praise  of  Rationalism 

"  Bonum  rationis  est  hominis  bonum  "  ^ 
**  Homo  maxime  est  mens  hominis  "  ^ 

A   panegyric    is    not    always    rational    in    its 
substance,    and    its    length    sometimes    makes    it 

1  "The  good  of  reason  is  the  good   of  man." — St   Augustine,  De 
Trin.  VI.   8. 

2  "  Man  is  pre-eminently  the  mind  of  man." — St  Thomas  Aquinas, 
Summa,  i-2,  q.  29.  art,  4. 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         243 

highly  irrational.  Hence  I  must  not  linger  long 
on  this  section.  Besides,  as  we  are  all  Rationalists, 
because  all  non-fools,  too  much  praise  of  Rationalism 
might  be  considered  flattery  of  us  Rationalists,  and 
thus  stir  up  the  vanity  latent,  if  not  blatant,  in 
every  human  breast.  Hence,  to  escape  the  danger 
of  anything  like  complicity  in  guilt,  I  shall  let 
much  of  the  praising  be  done  by  others. 
'-'- Summum  anim^  est  ipsa  ratio'" '^ — "It  is  reason 
which  is  the  summation  of  the  soul,"  says 
St  Thomas,  the  interpreter  par  excellence  of 
Aristotle,  and  the  faithful  disciple  of  the  Greek 
master  whom  he  always  calls  "  the  Philosopher." 
And  again,  "  Causa  et  radix  humani  boni  est 
ratio'' '^ — "The  cause  and  root  of  man's  good  is 
Reason."  And  more  strongly  still:  '''-Nihil  est 
majus  mente  rationali  nisi  Deus""^ — "There  is 
nothing  greater  than  the  thinking  mind,  except 
God."  ^ 

Rationalism  is  often  said  to  be  a  formidable  foe 
of  Religion.  It  was  once  thought  to  be  its  best 
friend.  There  is  some  mistake  here,  that  prompts 
me  to  refer  you  to  a  foregoing  remark  about 
Rationalism  true  and  false.     Let  Rationalism  grow 

1  Ibid.  2-2,  q.  53,  art.  3.  2  7^/^^  j.j^  q^  55^  art.  i. 

3  Ibid.  Supplem.  q.  16,  art.  6. 

4  St  Augustine  had  written  the  same  sentence  with  "  human"  instead 
of  <' thinking"  mind.  St  Thomas,  who  was  a  great  believer  in 
angelic  spirits  and  their  resplendent  intelligences,  remembers  that  in 
the  mental  scale  they  come  between  man  and  God,  and  so  adroitly 
changes  the  word  '*  human"  to  "  thinking." 


244  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

from  more  to  more  in  Religion,  and  Religion  will  be 
all  the  better  for  it.  If  reason  got  a  fair  chance, 
would  it,  think  you,  lead  us  into  the  weher  of 
doubt  and  strife  and  recrimination  in  which  this 
dear  land  is  plunged,  and  plunged  so  long  that  it  is 
matter  of  conjecture  whether  she  will  ever  emerge 
with  breath  enough  in  her  body  to  pronounce 
the  name  of  God?  An  enemy  hath  done  this 
thing  and  no  friend.  The  best  human  friend  of 
Divine  Truth  is  the  thing  that  makes  man  most 
like  to  the  mind  of  God,  and  that  is  reason. 
If  Rationalism,  through  such  agencies  as  the 
Rationalist  Press  Association,  proclaims  itself  the 
enemy  of  Christianity,  make  sure,  with  the  aid  of 
your  reason,  which  kind  of  Rationalism  is  speaking, 
the  false  or  the  true.  If  "  Modernism  "  poses  as 
the  friend  of  Religion,  let  reason  pause  and  see 
whether  such  friendly  professions  come  well  from 
a  system  which  belittles  and  belies  reason,  and  is 
therefore  the  death  of  Rationalism,  rather  than 
the  life  of  Religion.  "  We  could  not  believe," 
says  St  Augustine,  "  if  we  had  not  rational  souls."  ^ 
With  rational  souls  men  can  disbelieve,  but  is  it 
the  rational  element  in  the  soul  that  is  in  arms 
against  Faith,  or  has  their  reason  capitulated  to 
such  foes  of  reason  as  ignorance,  passion,  or  pride  ? 
In  the  religious  sphere,  which  constitutes,  as 
Matthew  Arnold  says,  "  the  three-fourths  of  life," 

1  Epist.^    120,  n    3. 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         245 

there  is  room  for  the  exercise  of  reason,  and  yet 
this  department  is  just  the  one  where  reason  is 
exercised  least.  This  looks  badly  for  truth, 
considering  that,  in  the  words  of  Bishop  Butler, 
*' Reason  is  the  only  faculty  we  have  wherewith  to 
judge  concerning  anything,  even  religion  itself"^ 
In  the  search  for  the  true  religion,  reason  is 
wanted,  even  more  than  in  the  search  for  anything 
else.  "It  is  a  disgrace,"  cries  St  Augustine,  "to 
believe  any  man  without  good  reason.  Why 
expect  and  importune  me  to  do  it  ? "  ^  and  St 
Thomas  adds,  "  a  rational  man  should  not  be- 
lieve unless  he  sees  that  the  proposition  believed 
were  worthy  of  his  belief,  by  reason  of  the  evi- 
dence of  accompanying  signs,  or  for  some  good 
reason."  ^ 

Dispraise  of  a  great  thing  may  be  as  culpable  as 
praise  of  what  is  ignoble.  Rationalism  is  the 
highest  of  all  the  ''isms."  To  underrate  it  is  to 
deride,  and  to  denounce  it  is  to  forswear  the 
noblest  attribute  of  human  nature.  Outside  of 
it  no  one  can  find  human  salvation.  Whatever 
views  philosophers  have  held  of  the  genesis  of 
man,  whatever  theories  about  his  essence  have 
been  broached,  established,  attacked,  or  exploded, 
whether  we  be  illimitable  nothings  or  the  sum  of 
all  things,  the  sport  of  chance  or  the  objects  of 

1  Analogy,  etc.  2  j)g  UtUifate  Credendi,  xiv.  31. 

3  Summa,  2-2,  q.  I,  art.  4. 


246  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

design,  the  scions  of  brutes  or  the  sons  of  God, 
the  expansion  of  a  bodiless  idea  or  the  resukant 
force  of  dead  matter,  the  cunning  workmanship  of 
demiurges  or  the  clumsy  experiment  of  one  of 
Nature's  journeymen  ;  whencesoever  we  are  and 
whithersoever  tending,  all  are  agreed  that  there  is 
in  us  such  a  thing  as  thought,  and  to  this  thinking 
power  in  the  last  resort,  the  truth  or  falsehood  of 
every  judgment  that  sweeps  the  area  of  conscious- 
ness must  be  referred,  and  by  this  power  the 
final  word  of  acceptance  or  condemnation  on  every 
imaginable  creed,  system  or  hypothesis  must  be 
pronounced. 

III.  Definition  of  Rationalism 

It  is  no  grave  fault  of  mine,  I  submit,  to  have 
deferred  the  definition  of  Rationalism  so  long ;  it 
is  rather  a  covert  compliment  to  you,  that  you 
know  the  thing  before  I  define  it. 

A  very  conspicuous  feature  of  the  old  Rational- 
ists is  the  love  of  definition.  They  not  only 
could  not  get  on  without  it ;  they  simply  revelled 
in  it.  Were  it  only  to  humour  them,  let  us  define 
Rationalism  to  be  that  system  of  philosophy  which 
upholds  the  headship  of  human  reason. 

Exception  may  well  be  taken  to  this  form  of 
words  as  a  near  approach  to  tautology.  It  comes 
to  this,  that  human  reason  upholds  the  headship 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         247 

of  human  reason.  It  is  to  be  hoped  it  does. 
What  else  is  head  within  man  except  his  head? 
A  man  sticks  up  for  himself,  why  not  reason  for 
itself,  especially  as  there  is  nothing  else  worth 
sticking  up  for  ?  The  man  indeed  may  be  in  the 
wrong  in  his  self-defence,  whereas  reason  cannot 
err  in  its  declaration  that  it  cannot  knock  under  to 
something  inferior,  that  it  cannot  abdicate  or 
substitute  in  its  place  a  locum  tenens.  If  any  such 
competitor  or  rival  or  representative  is  to  be  found, 
reason  asks,  where  is  it?  and  there  is  no  answer. 
There  is  only  one  runner  in  the  race,  and  it  has  a 
walk-over.  Cast  about  for  the  main  thing  in  the 
material  universe,  and  your  mind  will  not  only 
light  upon,  but  get  fixed  on,  man,  and  your  scrutiny 
of  man  can  lead  to  no  other  conclusion  than  that 
the  biggest  thing  amidst  all  his  littlenesses  is  his 
power  of  thought.  "Narrow  the  world,  roomy 
the  brain  of  man,"  says  Schiller.  With  equal 
truth,  perhaps,  we  could  reverse  the  epithets 
and  speak  of  the  roomy  world  and  the  nzirrow 
brain,  but  it  is  not  a  question  of  space  here, 
but  of  relative  positions  in  the  scale  of  being.^ 
The  thinking  power  lodged  in  the  convolutions 
of  the  little  organ  called  the  brain  of  man,  is  con- 
fessedly of  a  higher  order  than  the  vast  stretch  of 
ether   *'  which  bathes  the  shores  of  the  farthest 

1  This  "scale"  is  a  great  favourite  with  Pope  in  his   "Essay  on 

Man." 


248  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

star,"  and  comes  under  the  designation  of  the 
lower  creation.  Reason,  then,  knows  itself  to 
be  head,  and  this  fact  will  enable  us  to  leave  out 
all  reference  to  reason  as  upholding  herself,  and 
define  Rationalism  more  simply  as  the  headship  of 
reason. 

*' Supremacy"  would  not  do  as  well.  It  means 
too  much.  We  may  stand  head  and  shoulders  above 
all  that  is  of  the  earth  earthy,  but  we  are  certainly 
not  supreme  over  it,  as  we  find  to  our  cost,  when 
we  try  to  tackle  it  and  bring  it  under  control.  In 
this  tussle,  if  anything  is  supreme,  it  is  not  our 
minds  but  certain  "  laws  of  Nature  "  which  are  not 
only  not  of  our  making,  but  are  often  directly 
opposed  to  our  will.  If  Sir  Gilbert  Scott,  the 
architect  of  this  University,  saw  a  stone  at  the 
bottom  of  the  ravine,  and  judged  it  worthy  to 
mount  to  the  top  of  the  tower  on  Gilmorehill,  you 
know  how  little  he  could  do  with  his  mind  and 
will,  if,  furnished  with  these  weapons  alone,  he 
entered  into  conflict  with  the  phenomena  of 
gravitation,  and  commanded  the  stone  to  rise. 
The  stone  would  not  move,  and  the  bystander 
might  laugh.  A  happy  compromise  between 
Nature  and  Sir  Gilbert  would  follow,  and  the 
block  and  pulley  would  lift  the  stone  into  mid-air. 
All  the  while  this  mechanical  device  would  be  as 
much  under  the  "law  of  gravity"  as  the  weight 
moved.     We  may  coax  Nature  and  play  into  her 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM  249 

hands,  but  it  is  folly  to  talk  of  supremacy  over 
forces  which  we  are  powerless  to  check  or  change 
in  any  substantial  way.  "  Supremacy,"  then,  has 
no  place  in  our  definition.  We  are  really  and 
truly  heads  over  some  things,  but  what  are  we 
supreme  over  ?     I,  for  one,  don't  know. 

IV.  Inerrancy  of  the  Senses 

My  panegyric  of  reason  was  pretty  strong.  As 
I  went  on,  somebody  may  have  regarded  me  as 
a  kind  of  Rugby  footballer  who  was  going  a  little 
too  fast  and  furious,  and  ought  to  be  stopped.  I 
am  afraid  I  must  go  on,  and  take  my  chance  of 
a  tripping.  I  am  going  to  call  Reason  inerrant 
^or  infallible.  The  shock  may  possibly  be  intensi- 
fied when  I  add  that  the  senses  of  man,  inferior 
though  they  necessarily  are  to  the  dominant 
reason,  are  themselves  entitled  to  be  called 
inerrant. 

Applying  a  little  of  the  old  Rationalism  to 
Sensism^  I  venture  to  assert  with  the  Aristotelian 
scholastics  that  our  senses  are  per  se  infallible 
guides  in  their  limited  domain.  Never  wrong 
themselves,  they  do  seem  to  mislead  us,  especially 
when  the  organs  of  sense  are  ill-equipped,  to  begin 
with,  or  have  suffered  some  lesion,  or  are  forced 
to  work  under  abnormal  conditions.  Hampered 
or  vitiated  though  they  be,  they  do  the  only  thing 


250  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

they  can  do — their  mechanical  best — and  if  error 
of  judgment  follows,  it  cannot  be  imputed  to  the 
non-judging  sense,  but  to  some  other  faculty  in  us. 
When  a  sense  is  from  any  cause,  congenital  or 
other,  defective  in  structure  or  function,  it  fails,  of 
course,  but  it  cannot  turn  false  witness.  Aristotle 
applied  to  this  breakdown  of  a  sense  a  Greek 
phrase  which  is  nearly  always  mistranslated 
by  the  English  "accidentally"  or  " casually." ^ 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  chance.  No  cataract 
on  the  eye  comes  "casually."  Another  thing 
which  the  Peripatetics  always  did  wnth  mishaps 
among  the  senses,  was  to  ignore  them  and  turn 
back  to  the  general  rule  of  their  normal  operation 
— and  we  cannot  blame  them.  They  were  not 
oculists,  or  aurists,  or  specialists,  but  only  philo- 
sophers. 

The  proper  object,  say  of  the  sense  of  vision,  is 
that  condition  of  the  thing  seen  which  we  call  its 
colour,  and  nothing  else,  not  hardness  nor  softness, 
nor  nearness  nor  distance.  The  normal  eye — and 
we  always  assume  unless  positive  proof  to  the 
contrary  is  forthcoming,  that  all  our  eyes  are 
normal — can  distinguish  between  red  and  green 
in  coloured  objects.  Ten  thousand  pairs  of  eyes 
set  in  the  skulls  of  ten  thousand  rational  men,  see 
a    train    passing   a    signal   at    express    speed   and 

1  This  famous  term  is  Kara  avfi^e^rjKbs :  medieval  Latin,  per  accident. 
It  generally  means  out  of  the  normal  course  of  nature,  and  approximates 
to  iraph.  <f>{)(nv. 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         251 

hurrying  to  destruction.  This  great  body  of 
spectators  gives  evidence,  we  will  suppose,  as  to 
the  colour  of  the  signal  lamps.  All  are  positive 
it  was  a  red  light.  We  are  making  no  inquiry 
into  the  mental  processes  going  on  in  the  minds 
of  the  eye-witnesses,  but  are  only  concerned  with 
their  eyes.  Are  we  absolutely  convinced,  after 
hearing  the  signalman  and  the  ten  thousand,  that 
the  red  colour  was  seen  by  this  vast  crowd?  I 
think  we  are.  We  receive  their  united  assertion 
with  confidence.  They  could  not  be  mistaken. 
The  evidence  is  overwhelming.  We  are  sure  of 
the  infallibility  of  the  host  of  witnesses,  but,  be 
it  observed,  not  more  sure  of  it  than  they  are  of 
the  infallibility  of  their  sense  of  sight  which 
recorded  the  sensation  which  they  call  the  sensa- 
tion of  redness.  The  reactive  sense  has  had  an 
impression  made  on  it.  It  cannot  have  more,  and 
it  cannot  have  less.  If  it  had  less,  it  could  not  be 
a  sense  in  action  ;  if  it  had  more,  the  added  element 
would  be  foreign  matter  to  the  simple  sense.  It 
records  because  it  cannot  help  recording,  and  it 
does  no  more  than  record  because  it  has  not  got  it 
in  it  to  do  more.  The  eye  must  act  under  the 
stimulus  of  light,  and  act  as  necessarily  and  as 
*' rightly  "  as  vibrations  in  the  ether;  equally  for 
the  ether  and  the  optic  nerve,  there  is  no  room  to 
go  wrong  in.  This  is  at  once  Rationalism  and 
common-sense.     The  objection   that   some  out  of 


252  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

the  ten  thousand  are  suffering  from  colour-blind- 
ness would  be  dismissed  by  the  Aristotelians  with 
the  remark  that  these  few  had  better  see  the 
oculist,  as  men  whose  eyes  were  '^  ill-disposed  "  or 
filled  by  some  redundant  "  humour."  Not  a  very 
scientific  way  of  putting  it,  yet  not  against 
common-sense.  These  sufferers,  not  having  ful- 
filled the  conditions  of  the  test,  are  politely 
informed  that  their  evidence  about  their  own 
visual  experiences  is  not  questioned.  In  its  morbid 
condition  their  retina  acted  with  the  perfect  accu- 
racy of  an  imperfect  organ,  as  a  '^game  "  leg  kicks 
with  all  the  little  force  it  can  command.  The 
sensation  of  green  in  the  case  in  point  was,  in  view 
of  the  damaged  apparatus,  rightly  recorded,  and  no 
other  record  could  be  made.  Nevertheless,  the 
colour-blind  are  asked  to  retire  from  the  public  court, 
with  condolence  on  their  weakness,  but  without  a 
stain  on  their  visual  honour.  This  done,  the  main 
thesis  remains  in  possession — the  eye  "  in  being," 
which  confines  itself,  as  it  must,  to  the  percep- 
tion of  a  lighted  or  coloured  surface,  is  infallible 
in  its  record  of  its  own  peculiar  sensation. 

The  conclusion  may  be  applied  with  profit  to 
the  other  senses.  The  ear  is  infallible,  though 
the  deaf  man  hears  no  thunderclap;  the  taste  is 
infallible  though  the  furred  tongue  of  the  patient 
reports  that  sweet  is  bitter  and  bitter  sweet. 
Everybody  calls  the  holly-leaf  prickly  though  the 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         253 

thick-skinned  hand  does  not  feel  it.  In  all 
cases  of  sense-impression,  the  sense-impressed  are 
infallibly  sure — the  hearing  man  of  the  sound, 
the  eating  man  of  the  taste,  and  the  wounded 
man  of  the  puncture. 

It  may  be  doubted  a  priori  whether  the  master- 
factor  in  man  is  in  worse  case  than  the  lower 
recipients  of  sense-impressions.  It  is  a  great 
thing  not  to  be  able  to  go  wrong.  The  senses,  as 
shown,  cannot  err  in  their  respective  provinces. 
Can  it  be  inferred  that  the  reason  is  similarly 
endowed?  The  question  will  be  best  answered 
after  something  has  been  said  of  the  origin  of 
ideas  generated  in  the  mind  from  material  objects, 
through  the  senses. 

V.  Materialistic  Basis  of  Rationalistic 
Idealogy 

The  immediate  object  of  sense  perception  having 
been  discussed,  the  question  arises:  What  is 
the  immediate  object  of  the  intellect  of  man? 
You  will  notice  that  I  carefully  refrain  from 
slighting  your  intelligence  by  any  reference  to  the 
theory  that  sense  and  intellect  are  one.  Dub  me 
a  materialist,  when  you  hear  the  answer.  The 
immediate  object  of  the  intellectual  faculty  is  the 
essential  nature  of  material  objects  brought  under 
its  notice  by  the  action  of  the  senses.     If  the  play 


254  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

of  the  senses  does  not  fall  on  a  material  object,  or 
if,  for  any  reason,  that  play  becomes  inoperative, 
not  only  does  no  mental  process  follow,  but  all 
such  processes  are  impossible.  Next  to  our  de- 
pendence on  God  comes  our  dependence  on  matter. 
Over-emphasis  on  the  dependence  of  our  original 
ideas  on  God  leads  to  a  false  mysticism  :  over- 
emphasis on  the  dependence  of  thought  on  matter 
leads  to  a  false  idealogy,  which  inevitably  issues 
in  a  blend  of  blank  materialism  and  craven 
agnosticism.  The  agnostic  is  constantly  harking 
back  to  the  empirical  truth  that  the  highest  intel- 
lectual ideas  have  their  source  in  the  low  stratum 
of  material  objects.  Then  false  analogy  comes  in, 
tumbling  on  the  top  of  phrases — the  stream  can- 
not rise  higher  than  its  source  (it  can  by  the 
pump);  the  ill-bred  boy  must  grow  into  the 
vulgar  man  (not  always) ;  base  blood  will  out 
(unless  it  be  refined)  ;  you  can't  make  a  silk  purse 
out  of  a  sow's  ear,  (dermatologists  can  do  some- 
thing very  like  it).  Hence  it  is  argued  that  intel- 
lectual ideas  must  pay  the  penalty  of  their  lowly 
origin,  and  can  never  look  up  with  steady  gaze  at 
the  supra-materialistic  conceptions  of  the  alleged 
science  of  Natural  Theology.  Yet  somehow,  in 
spite  of  the  warning  words  of  the  wise,  and  in  the 
midst  of  all  these  sagacious  head-shakes,  we  do 
manage  to  do  the  trick.  As  a  matter  of  stubborn 
fact,   and   apart   from   all   flimsy   theory,    we   do 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         255 

get  on,  weighted  though  we  are  with  ideas  of 
materialistic  origin.  We  do  contrive  to  look 
through  Nature  up  to  Nature's  God.  Lowly 
though  they  are  in  the  beginning,  our  ideas  are 
fairly  detachable  from  the  matter  which  gave 
them  birth,  and  can  and  do  rise,  as  in  the  case  of 
Lord  Kelvin  of  Belfast  and  Glasgow — 0  clarum  et 
venerabile  nomen ! — to  a  conspicuous  place  on  a 
highly  exalted  spiritual  plane.  Higher  and  higher 
is  the  ascent,  but  we  do  not  quail,  not  even  when 
we  come  to  the  First  Cause  of  all.  '-'•Ecce  Deus^ 
vincens  scientiam  nostram> "  Lo !  it  is  God,  and 
God  known,  and  God  still  overtopping  our  know- 
ledge. That  God  is  known  to  the  great  Biblical 
poet  is  shown  by  the  magnificent  passage  on  the 
material  creation,  that  follows  this  striking  text. 

Outside  this  world  of  sense  there  are  realities, 
and  they  are  reached  through  the  world  of  sense, 
and  when  so  reached  they  are  found  with  earthly 
vapours  about  them,  and  wearing  the  poor  texture 
in  which  our  material  senses  could  not  but  clothe 
them,  and  of  which  our  loftiest  aspirations  after 
truth  cannot  wholly  divest  them.  They  are 
truly  known,  though  far  from  adequately,  and 
with  many  limitations.  They  are  apprehended  by 
reason  mediately,  through  the  bodily  organs,  and 
somewhat  distortedly,  like  things  seen  in  the  dusk, 
but    not    mockingly  and  not    fallaciously.     They 

1  Job  xxxvi.  26,  in  the  Vulgate. 


256  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

are  ours,  but  not  by  insight  or  intuition.  Freed 
from  the  bonds  of  matter  themselves,  they  lend 
no  support  to  the  theory  of  our  emancipation  from 
what  Plato  called  a  thraldom,  and  Aristotle  a 
natural  necessity.  We  have  to  wait  on  the  senses 
before  we  become  their  masters.  We  must  take 
the  consequences  of  the  essentially  materialistic 
origin  of  ideas,  and  confess  that  the  strongest 
intellect  that  ever  took  wing  aloft,  does  not 
enter  into  possession  of  the  full  meaning 
of  any  one  supra-sensible  truth.  "  Cognitio  earum 
(yeritatuni)  non  est  humana  posses 310^"" — "Clear 
knowledge  of  these  truths  is  not  in  the  possession 
of  man."^  Thus  speaks  the  true  materialism  of 
the  old  Rationalism  ;  and  it  was  in  this  sense  that 
I  invited  you  to  call  me  a  materialist.  Just  as  I 
said  that  we  must  be  Rationalists  or  fools,  I  may 
add  now  that  we  must  either  be  materialists  in 
our  psychology,  or  demi-gods  or  some  such 
preposterous  thing.  No  matter  how  the  spiritual 
faculty  within  may  seize  on,  transform  and  idealise 
sensations  previously  derived  from  material 
substances,  there  can  be  no  grist  for  the  intel- 
lectual mill  except  that  which  is  borne  through 
the  canals  of  the  senses.  Thus  the  disembodied 
spirit  of  the  infant  whose  first  breath  is  its  last 
is  doomed,  unless  there  be  wondrous  modes 
ot  tuition  in  the    spirit-world,   to   go  through  its 

1  St  Thomas  following  Aristotle. 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         i^j 

eternity  without  a  single  vestige  of  the  thought 
and  ratiocination  which  mortals  can  acquire, 
solely  through  the  use  and  study  of  the  material 
creation. 1  Where  there  is  no  kind  of  physical 
stimulus  or  molecular  motion  in  the  organ  of  the 
brain,  the  scientific  fear  may  well  be  entertained 
that  the  mental  correlative  of  this  material  change 
will  never  appear  in  the  form  of  an  intellectual  idea. 

Granted  there  are  no  innate  ideas — and  no 
one  has  ever  gone  within  measurable  distance  of 
proving  it — whence  are  ideas  to  come  save  from 
the  senses  ?  Perhaps  from  spirit  acting  on  spirit ; 
but  this  is  speculation.  A  melancholy  corollary 
is  that  some  medical  students  who  depart  this  life 
in  the  bloom  of  their  "  first  year,"  may  remain  for 
ever  as  destitute  of  all  notions  of  anatomy  as  the 
infant  may  be  of  all  forms  of  intellectual  life — and 
who  can  contemplate  without  a  shudder  a  medical 
eternity  without  an  idea  of  a  human  skeleton ! 

The  very  intangible,  because  highly  spiritual, 
action  of  mind  on  an  object  of  sense  may  possibly 
be  illustrated  thus : — A  man  and  a  cat  seated 
together  at  the  fire  are  looking  together  at  a 
common  object,  say  a  coal-scuttle.  The  same 
sense-impressions,  we  may  assume,  are  made  on 
both,  but  the  man  is  thinking  and  the  cat — I  beg 
pardon  of  some  students  of  feline  psychology — is 

1  No  reference  will  be  expected  here  to  the  supernatural  state  of  the 
baptised  infant. 
R 


258  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

not,  and  cannot.     Abstracting    from  the  thisness 
and  thusness  of  the  object,  the  man  sees  at  a  glance 
that  it  is  a  vessel  for  coal.     Note  the  significance 
of  the  indefinite  article.     The  moment  we  say  in 
our  mind  ^'' a  vessel"  we  are  putting  the  scuttle 
in  a  class,  we  are  generalising  or  forming  a  generic 
idea  not  of  the  individual  piece  of  metal,  but  of 
its    whatness.     We    are   intellectually  coerced  to 
know   what    it    is — a    vessel.       And    this    is    a 
small  thing,  you  say,  this  overlooking  of  all  the 
individualising  notes  of  the   coal-scuttle    and  this 
formation  of  the  large  concept  of  vessel.     Why, 
every   definition    in    a    dictionary   does    this,   and 
who  respects    the    lexicographer!     Seriously  this 
process  that    comes    so    easy  to  you   and  to  me 
as  we  gaze  at  the  scuttle,  is  of  such  vast  import 
that    if  you    write  down   this  ridiculously  simple 
definition,   "  A  coal-scuttle  is  a  vessel  for  coal,"  an 
expert  in   the  old  Rationalism  will  undertake  to 
prove  to  you  that  you  are  possessed  of  a  faculty  far 
transcending    sense,    a    faculty    non-material    and 
spiritual,  and  therefore  indivisible  and  therefore  in- 
destructible ;  in  a  word,  that  you  have  a  soul  and  an 
immortal  one  too.     Wherever  there  is  a  mental  leap 
from  the  individual  to  generalisation  about  the  in- 
dividual, it  takes  a  spiritual  soul  to  perform  the  feat. 
Matter  moves  only  in  its  own  plane.     It  never  jumps 
up  out  of  it,  for  it  knows  of  no  such  relation  as  up 
or  down^  nor  of  anything  outside  or  above  its  con- 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM 


259 


centrated  self.  It  never  refers  an  object  which  is 
seen  to  a  class  of  objects  not  seen.  You  see  a 
harmonium;  you  think  of  reed-instruments  and 
class  it  with  them.  You  are  doing  what  is  im- 
possible to  matter  or  mere  sense.  No  animal  has 
ever  been  known  to  make  the  smallest  attempt  at  the 
universal  idea  that  lurks  in  the  simplest  definition 
of  the  commonest  object  of  sense.  Every  line 
in  the  despised  dictionary  is  a  proof  of  the  non- 
material  character  of  the  mind.  No  trained  horse 
or  dog  or  elephant,  in  spite  of  the  magniloquent 
puffs  of  their  trainers,  has  come  within  shouting 
distance  even  of  the  clumsy  definition  that  has 
made  a  certain  boy  immortal :  "A  button  is  what, 
when  it  isn't  sewed  on,  makes  breeches  fall  down." 
In  the  wide  sweep  it  takes  of  a  large  class  of  wear- 
ing apparel,  the  definition  is  a  noble  generalisation 
and  essentially  intellectual.  The  idea  underlying 
the  word  "thing"  or  even  the  slang,  "thingamy," 
is  that  of  Being  in  general.  By  its  very  simplicity 
it  defies  analysis,  and  dwells  in  so  rarefied  an 
atmosphere  that  no  material  organ  or  function 
has  ever  moved  a  step  in  its  direction ;  yet  it  is 
the  concept  that  is  never  wanting  in  each  and 
every  operation  of  the  human  mind. 

Take  another  example  of  intellectual  power  not 
shared  by  any  being  below  the  level  of  man.  From 
one  tiny  bit  of  radium,  the  student  of  this  mysterious 
substance,  who  has  some  knowledge  of  its  inner 


26o  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

(not  innermost)  nature,  will  be  able  to  generalise, 
and  feels  himself  irresistibly  prompted  to  generalise 
and  to  assert  with  absolute  confidence  that  the 
phenomena  he  has  been  exhibiting  will  be  repeated 
in  every  piece  of  radium,  should  that  mineral  be 
discovered  lying  in  numberless  beds,  each  a 
hundred  feet  thick,  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
world.  How  does  the  one  piece  in  his  hand — 
and  few  men  have  ever  held  two — tell  him  that  ? 
It  does  not  tell  him.  He  could  not  rise  an  inch 
above  the  specimen  he  holds  between  finger  and 
thumb,  unless  he  had  within  him  the  far-carrying 
pinions  of  a  spiritual  soul.  Conscious  or  sub- 
conscious, this  power  of  generalisation  is  always 
present  to  the  thinking  man,  and  the  general  ideas 
which  he  forms  and  formulates  with  lightning 
speed  and  inexhaustible  fertility,  and  often  without 
an  eflfort,  are  invariably  absent  from  the  world 
of  matter  and  sense. 

The  triumph  of  the  Idea  over  the  matter  in 
which  it  w^as  cradled  can  be  studied  in  a  variety  of 
daily  experiences.  The  eye  of  the  observer 
stationed  on  a  long  stretch  of  railroad,  sees  con- 
vergence in  the  parallel  lines  of  rails ;  the  mind 
while  admitting  the  optical  necessity  of  this 
phenomenon,  knows  that  the  rails  are  at  every 
point  equally  far  apart,  that  they  neither  meet  nor 
tend  to  meet.i     It  has  grasped  the  idea  of  parallel- 

1  The  mistake  of  John  Stuart  Mill  on  this  point  is  now  very  gener- 
ally recognised  and  even  ridiculed. 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         261 

ism,  and  has  travelled  a  long  way  in  idealism  since 
the  eyes  first  rested  on  two  parallel  lines.  Again, 
in  a  badly  drawn  diagram,  where  the  radii  of  a 
circle  are  anything  but  equal,  the  geometrical 
student  pursues  the  protracted  course  of  his  reason- 
ing, undisturbed  by  the  glaring  inequality  revealed 
by  the  compass,  discards  all  the  defects  of  the 
draughtsman,  and  finally  arrives  at  the  ideally 
perfect  conclusion  that  the  angle  ABC  =  the  angle 
DEF,  which  is  obviously  not  the  case  on  paper. 
His  mind  is  soaring  high  above  the  figure,  though 
all  the  concepts  it  is  manipulating  and  combining, 
came  in  the  first  instance  from  the  drawn  symbols 
seen  long  ago. 

The  process  started  by  matter  ends  in  the 
spurning  of  matter  under  the  springy  foot  of  mind. 

VI.  Inerrancy  of  Reason 

The  phrase  "  Inerrancy  of  Reason  "  may  be  at 
once  irritating  and  mirth-provoking.  Anyhow,  it 
sometimes  causes  a  look  of  disgust  and  sometimes 
a  giggle.  The  human  mind,  groping  after  the 
shadow  of  truth,  or,  worse  still,  running  amok  of 
truth,  is  hardly  a  fit  subject  for  truth  to  abide  in. 
It  is  not  always  doing  as  you  say,  reply  the 
scholastics,  and  it  is  gross  exaggeration  to  say 
that  it  is.  There  are  two  noble  definitions  of 
Aristotle    which   of    themselves    would    seem   to 


262  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

disprove  the  statement  that  the  chief  function  of 
reason  is  to  go  wrong :  (i)  Man  is  a  rational 
animal ;  (2)  Truth  is  an  equation  between  the 
subject  knowing  and  the  object  known.  Against 
this  latter,  all  the  forces  of  Kant  and  the  German 
metaphysicians  are  engaged  in  a  truceless  war, 
but  the  definition  stands  unshaken.  Certitude  is 
attainable,  and  we  are  as  conscious  at  times  that 
we  have  it  as  that  we  are  possessed  of  free  will. 

Let  us  return  to  the  so-called  simple,  but  really 
amazing,  process  of  the  immediate  mental  appre- 
hension of  the  generic  nature  of  a  material  object. 
In  this  the  human  mind  is  inerrant.  The  simplest 
case  of  simple  apprehension  is  perhaps  found  in  the 
experience  of  seeing  an  undefined  object  moving 
in  the  dark.  It  may  be  inanimate,  or  a  man  or 
a  beast.  On  this  we  pronounce  no  judgment, 
and  if  we  did  we  should  probably  be  in  error. 
All  we  say  of  it  is  that  it  is  "a  moving  thing." 
The  insignificant-looking  word  "  thing,"  as  has 
been  noted,  implies  the  widest  possible  generalisa- 
tion :  it  is  the  embodiment  of  the  most  transcen- 
dental of  all  concepts,  that  of  Being,  and  is  always 
a  standing  witness  to  the  existence  and  action  of 
mind.  Of  this  and  this  only  we  are  certain — that 
there  is  before  us  a  moving  thing.  Here,  it  ever, 
the  truth  has  been  taken  in,  and  vague  though  the 
object  of  thought  is,  the  truth  has  been  appre- 
hended in  such  perfection  that   a   true  equation 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         26^ 

of  cognition  has  been  established  between  the 
cognising  subject  and  the  object  cognised.  We 
are  certain  that  there  is  a  moving  thing  under  our 
eyes,  and  that  we  have  mentally  grasped  it  and 
annexed  it,  and  this  without  the  least  possibility 
of  doubt.  What  is  true  of  the  senses  is  true  of 
the  mind.  The  mind  is  inerrant  in  the  act  of 
simple  apprehension  of  a  material  thing.  Challenge 
this  conclusion  and  the  way  is  opened  wide  for 
the  introduction  of  a  scepticism  which  would  make 
a  clean  sweep  of  the  possibility  of  knowledge.  If 
this  inerrancy  in  the  primary  action  of  the  mind  is 
denied,  it  would  follow  that  no  judgment  pro- 
nounced by  the  same  faculty  can  be  trusted,  not 
even  the  judgments  embodied  in  the  axioms  of 
Euclid.  "The  whole  is  greater  than  the  part." 
That  is  a  judgment,  and  is  universally  regarded, 
except  by  the  out-and-out  sceptic,  as  an  infallible 
one  ;  but  it  is  worthless  unless  the  simple  appre- 
hension of  the  subject  and  predicate  of  the 
proposition  has  been  infallible  too. 

As  to  these  judgments,  the  number  of  which  I 
fear  is  often  understated,  little  need  be  said.  They 
are  to  be  found  most  thickly  clustered  in  pure 
mathematics,  and  constitute  a  class  of  propositions 
which  carry  on  their  face  the  unquestioned  and 
unquestionable  evidence  of  their  truth.  Of  these, 
in  turn,  it  must  be  said  that  unless  they  are  known 
at  a  glance  of  reason  to  be  infallible,  no  mathe- 


264  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

matical  reasoning  based  on  them  has  the  slightest 
claim  to  validity.  To  assume  them  is  unreasonable, 
for  assumptions  are  made  in  the  twilight,  and  these 
propositions  in  the  lustre  of  reason.  Nor  can  any 
man  prove  such  a  statement  as  that  two  parallel 
lines  indefinitely  produced  will  never  meet.  It  is 
one  of  the  principia  per  se  nota^  the  fundamental 
propositions  known  through  themselves  and  not 
through  antecedents ;  and  to  try  to  go  below 
any  one  of  them  would  be  the  same  as  to  try  to 
descend  a  lower  rung  than  the  lowest  rung  of  a 
ladder.  One  cannot  get  under  truths  which  have 
no  under-side,  so  deep  are  they  embedded  in  the 
roots  of  rational  nature. 

Not  only  in  the  region  of  mathematics  are  these 
inerrant  judgments  found.  Science  is  full  of  them, 
and  without  them  she  cannot  teach  or  even  live. 
As  a  scientist,  you  are  sure  you  have  got  at  the 
essentially  carbonic  nature  of  a  piece  of  coal. 
You  know  nothing,  we  will  suppose,  about  the 
extent  of  the  coalfields  that  nature  has  laid  out. 
For  all  you  know,  they  may  yield  only  ounces  or 
billions  of  tons;  yet  you  are  certain,  that  whatever 
the  output  is,  be  it  as  small  as  radium  or  as  large 
as  water,  all  the  specimens,  if  they  be  really  coal, 
will  have  carbon  as  a  main  constituent.  What 
makes  you  so  confident  ?  The  confidence  is  not 
based  on  any  assumption  about  the  "  uniformity  of 
nature."     You  have  explored  only  an  infinitesimal 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         265 

portion  of  nature,  and  an  assumption  of  the  kind, 
like  the  Kantian  assumption  of  the  reality  of  the 
external  world,  is  anathema  to  reason,  which  loves 
the  light  and  shuns  the  darkness.  Examine  your 
own  consciousness  and  you  will  find  that  you  are  sure 
of  all  coal  in  nature,  because  you  are  sure  of  the 
correctness  of  your  universal  concept  of  coal, 
derived  from  the  examination  of  this  single  sample 
in  your  laboratory.  If  you  deny  your  certitude 
here,  you  have  no  right  to  generalise  about  what 
you  have  not  seen  or  analysed,  that  is,  you  must 
hold  your  peace,  resign  your  chair  of  chemistry, 
and  give  no  more  scientific  lectures  on  coal  or 
carbon. 

Better  for  you  and  better  for  your  classes  to 
maintain  with  Rationalism  that  on  a  vast  number  of 
scientific  problems  the  judgment  of  men  of  science 
is  simply  inerrant.  That  on  a  vaster  number  they 
go  wrong  I  do  not  deny,  but  sooner  or  later  they 
will  be  found  out,  and  the  finder-out  will  again  be 
human  reason,  and  human  reason  again  inerrant. 

Passing  from  this  department  of  rational  judg- 
ments, we  are  not  to  assume  that  the  next  step 
forward  will  land  us  in  the  boundless  field  occupied 
by  the  mental  freaks  and  vagaries,  blindnesses  and 
blunders  of  the  human  mind.  If  the  easy  work 
of  the  simple  apprehension  of  a  moving  object  of 
sense  is  infallibly  done,  and  if  the  more  complex 
process    of    formulating    the    judgments    of    the 


266  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

mathematician  and  the  scientist  can  be  infallibly 
performed,  it  is  likely  enough  that  these  latter, 
when  linked  logically  together,  will  lead  to  a  whole 
series  of  propositions  that  can  be  known  to  be  as 
infallible  as  the  antecedent  ones  that  have  occupied 
and  satisfied  the  mind.  Thus  we  are  prompted  to 
extend  the  area  of  the  inerrancy  of  reason  to  an 
indefinite  number  of  cases  of  ratiocination.  The 
propositions  of  geometry  supply  the  aptest 
illustration.  After  the  long  process  of  reasoning 
required  to  establish  the  truth  that  the  square  on 
the  hypotenuse  equals  the  sum  of  the  squares  on 
the  other  two  sides  of  a  right-angled  triangle,  the 
mind  of  the  student  is  convinced  that  his  final 
conclusion  is  quite  as  stable  and  unassailable  and 
impossible  to  doubt,  as  any  one  of  the  axioms  which 
were  taken  up  and  utilised  on  his  way  to  the  goal. 
Thus  we  find  ourselves  in  a  position  to  sum  up 
our  triple  division  of  the  infaUible  operations  of 
human  reason. 

(i)  In  the  simple  apprehension  of  material 

objects    duly  presented  by   the  senses, 

reason  is  infaUible. 
(2)  In    many  judgments,    notably    those    ot 

pure  mathematics  and  applied  science,  the 

same  claim  of  reason  must  be  allowed. 
(3J  In  many  forms  of  ratiocination,  the  same 

infallibility  for  the  same  faculty  must  be 

asserted. 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         267 

This  granted,  the  ground  may  be  said  to  be 
cleared  for  what  at  first  sight  will  appear  an  over- 
bold generalisation.  It  is  this : — Reason,  as  such^  is 
always  inerrant.  The  rational  man,  needless  to 
say,  can  go  wrong  both  in  his  judgments  and  in 
his  ratiocination.  He  may  judge  from  a  rubicund 
nose  that  a  teetotaller  is  a  hard  drinker.  He  may 
work  out  a  long-reasoned  problem  in  algebra  and 
find  that  his  solution  comes  to  this  impossible 
equation  :  (a  +  b)  (a  -  b)  =  a^  -  b^  But  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  it  is  not  his  reason  that  has  betrayed 
him  into  these  mistakes.  Something  that  is  more 
like  unreason  than  reason  has  insinuated  itself 
into  his  psychical  states,  and,  without  any  conscious 
co-operation  on  his  part,  has  fallen  foul  of  his 
reason,  warped  it,  distorted  it,  stifled  or  ejected  it, 
with  the  result  that  the  rational  processes  he  was 
engaged  on  are  dislocated,  enfeebled  or  destroyed. 
It  is  not  his  reason  that  has  failed ;  it  is  the  factor 
of  ignorance  or  inattention  or  self-confidence  or 
prejudice  or  passion  that  has  brought  about  the 
wreck  of  what  was  intended  to  be  a  highly 
rational  work.  The  ^'intromission,"  to  use  a  legal 
phrase,  of  this  foreign  factor  has  rendered  the 
labours  of  the  rational  man  abortive  and  his 
conclusions  false.  So  does  it  happen  with  the 
youthful,  or  even  the  mature,  arithmetician.  The 
boy  knows  his  arithmetic  table  and  knows  it  to  be 
infallible,   but    some    disturbing   cause    like   care- 


268  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

lessness  creeps  in,  or  some  "brain-storm"  of 
distraction  blows,  and  the  answer  to  the  long  sum 
issues  in  a  shape  which  can  only  be  true  if  2  +  2 
are  5.  The  something  wrong  is  not  due  to  the 
printed  tables,  but  only  to  the  boy's  departure 
from  this  unerring  code  of  reason. 

If  reason  as  such  and  in  its  own  sphere  were 
liable  to  error,  we  may  well  ask,  What  is  there 
to  put  the  error  right  ?  The  only  possible  answer 
is  "reason."  But  ex  hypothesi  reason  is  of  itself 
and  at  its  own  work  liable  to  error.  How,  then, 
can  it  undertake  to  eliminate  error?  But  it  can, 
and  it  is  the  only  way. 

The  final  conclusion,  I  own,  is  startling  to  modern 
ears,  but  it  is  none  the  less  inevitable,  and  has 
been  reached  by  the  chief  of  the  schoolmen  long 
ago.  No  one  of  the  multitudinous  errors  that  find 
entrance  into  the  mental  states  and  processes  of 
the  rational  man,  can  be  referred  to  reason  as 
its  source.  They  come  from  other  causes  too 
numerous  to  mention  here  and  too  deep  for  me  to 
unearth.  Reason  as  such  is  inerrant.  I  may  be 
blind,  but  I  do  not  see  what  there  is  to  say  against 
this  summing-up. 

VII.  Reason  in  Command 

Where  there  are  warring  interests  in  a 
kingdom,  the  government,  if  it  is  to  hold  its  own, 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         269 

must  keep  those  forces  under  supervision  and 
control.  Of  the  conflicts  between  the  higher  and 
lower  natures  in  man,  I  need  say  nothing,  except 
that  we  all  have  the  same  experience  as  St  Paul 
and  know  that  the  struggle  is  there,  and  chronic 
and  truceless. 

Of  the  necessity  ot  preserving  order  in  the 
midst  of  a  rebellion,  in  which  we  well  know  which 
is  the  rightful  authority  and  which  the  lawless 
usurper,  we  are  equally  well  aware,  but  I  am  not 
going  to  dwell  on  it,  lest  I  should  rise  or 
degenerate  into  a  preacher.  No  Rationalist,  I 
suppose,  can  doubt  that  reason  must  stick  to  the 
helm  and  weather  the  storm  as  best  it  can,  while 
the  wild  waves  are  saying,  ^^  Oh,  how  jolly  to  be  a 
fool !  "  Granted  that  reason  has  got  the  headship 
and  is  the  only  faculty  at  all  fitted  for  high  station, 
it  is  clear  that  it  must  keep  its  position,  and  that 
in  two  main  departments — (i)  in  abstract  thought ; 
(2)  in  concrete  operation. ^  In  the  first,  reason 
claims  to  direct  all  mental  processes ;  in  the  second, 
to  preside  over  the  whole  field  of  human  action, 
which  is  in  turn  subdivided  into  (a)  intelligent 
action  on  external  nature,  (b)  moral  action,  with 
all  its  concomitants. 

(i)  The  rule  for  this  headship  in  speculative 
thought  may  be  laid  down  thus : — Conclusions 
arrived  at  in  all  complex  mental  processes  are  then, 

1  In  speculativit ;  in  operabilibus,  in  Scholastic  Latin. 


270  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

and  then  only,  fully  rational  and  certainly  valid 
when  they  are  reducible  to  first  principles,  which 
no  sane  man  can  deny.  Thus  the  most  elaborate 
investigations  of  the  pure  mathematician  can  be 
justified  to  himself,  or  to  others  on  demand,  if  he 
can  show  that  on  analysis  these  conclusions  can  be 
brought  down  to  some  formula  as  impregnable  as 
this — two  straight  lines  cannot  enclose  a  space. 

(2)  (a)  To  test  the  conclusions  arrived  at  by 
the  practical  reason,  engaged  on  intelligent  action 
on  matter,  the  rule  is  much  the  same.  Such  con- 
clusions are  good,  if,  on  examination,  they  are 
found  to  be  directly  or  indirectly  conformable  to 
some  practical  principle  of  mechanico-rational 
work.  Thus  a  great  engineering  scheme  is  shown 
to  be  sound  when  it  is  analysed  into  such  feasible 
details  as  damming  a  dammable  stream,  or  tunnel- 
ling a  hill  which  lends  itself  to  tunnelling. 

(2)  (b)  Closely  analogous  to  the  above  is  the 
rule  for  testing  the  conclusions  of  the  practical 
reason  or  conscience  ^  when  the  subject-matter  is 
moral  action.  Thus  every  form  of  business  trans- 
action which  can  be  shown  not  to  fall  within  the 
proscribed  area  of  theft  or  fraud,  and  which  is 
therefore  proved  to  be  in  harmony  with  an  ele- 


1  The  labyrinthine  difficulties  in  which  modern  philosophers  have 
become  entangled  since  they  called  "Conscience"  a  "faculty"  dis- 
tinct from  reason,  and  hoisted  it  into  a  position  above  reason,  were  not 
known  to  the  ancients. 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         271 

mentary  principle  of  the  natural  law,  is  pronounced 
by  reason  to  be  morally  right  and  just. 

The  rule  is  capable  of  endless  extension,  not 
only  to  personal  but  to  political  morality.  Thus, 
if  a  civil  Government  proposes  a  revolution  in 
matters  educational,  and  recommends  its  new  Bill 
as  fair  and  righteous,  it  must  be  able  to  show  that 
the  moral  character  claimed  for  the  measure  is  in 
full  accord  with  such  primary  principles  of  morality 
as  that  the  rights  of  parents  over  children  have  the 
first  claim,  and  that  all  alleged  rights  in  conflict 
with  these  are  grievous  wrongs. ^ 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  headship  of  reason 
covers  a  very  wide  sphere,  within  man  and  out- 
with,  and  that  this  queen  has  de  jure  a  vast  host 
of  subjects,  though  many  of  these  are  de  facto  en- 
gaged in,  or  preparing  for  revolt. 

VIII.  The  Headship  of  all  Headships 

The  rational  survey  of  things  beneath  us  is  good 
— Despice !  of  things  around  us  is  better — Circum- 

1  The  teaching  of  the  old  Rationalism  on  this  point  is  outspoken  and 
fearless.  '*  Lex  humana  in  tantum  habet  rationem  legis,  in  quantum 
est  secundum  rationem  rectam," — "  Human  law  has  ih  it  the  true  char- 
acter  of  law,  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  conformable  to  right  reason " 
(St  Thomas,  Summa,  1-2,  q.  93,  art.  3).  Again,  "  Oportet  quod  lex  sit 
aliqua  ratione  regulata  ;  et  hoc  modo  intelligitur  quod  voluntas  prin- 
cipis  habet  vigorem  legis ;  alioquin  voluntas  principis  magis  esset 
iniquitas  quam  lex," — "  Law  must  have  for  its  regulator  some  character 
of  reason ;  and  in  this  way  is  the  saying  to  be  understood,  that  the 
will  of  the  Governor  has  the  force  of  law ;  otherwise  the  will  of  the 
Governor  would  be  tyranny  rather  than  law"  (^Ibid.  1-2,  q.  90,  art.  i). 


272  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

spice  I  of  things  above  us  is  best — Suspice  !  Artists 
in  colour  bewail  the  fact  that  to  most  men  who  walk 
this  earth,  cloudland  is  an  unknown  land,  because 
they  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  see  what  a 
pageant  is  prepared  in  the  skies  for  the  man  with 
eyes  uplifted.  The  survey  of  things  at  our  feet 
is  not  enough.  If  too  protracted,  it  may  be  posi- 
tively injurious.  If  there  is  anything  above  our 
heads,  it  behoves  us  to  look  up  and  see  what  it  is, 
especially  if  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  along 
with  the  sight  destined  for  our  eyes  there  is  a 
voice  from  heaven  that  is  meant  to  reach  our  ears. 
Reason  knows  it  is  set  above  something,  but 
knows  it  not  more  infallibly  than  it  knows  that 
Someone  sits  above  it.  To  every  man  with  any- 
thing like  good  will,  even  though  his  hearing  of 
her  is  listless  and  his  service  grudging,  queen- 
reason  has  the  same  message  to  deliver.  She  is 
where  she  is  by  divine  appointment,  and  she  is  not 
supreme.  Then  she  points  upwards,  and  though 
men  cannot  mistake  the  gesture,  they  prefer  not 
to  follow  it,  and  their  truant  eyes  go  down  again. 

It  is  a  good  thing,  as  you  stand  at  a  level 
crossing  on  a  railroad,  to  look  both  ways,  up 
and  down.  If  you  look  only  down,  there  may  be 
an  express  on  the  other  side  hurling  itself  at  you 
with  the  ferocity  of  death.  There  are,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  many  Rationalists  who  train  themselves 
systematically  never  to  look  above  themselves,  and 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         273 

this,  they  think,  is  to  pay  court  to  reason.  They 
are  satisfied  when  they  have  heard  the  very 
partial  message  of  reason  concerning  her  own 
headship^  that  they  are  on  the  top — top-dogs,  I 
think,  is  the  slang  for  them — and  that  as  very 
much  lies  within  them  and  beneath  them,  and 
nothing  at  all  towers  above  them,  they  have 
nothing  to  look  up  at.  That  is  their  position,  and 
were  it  my  business  to  criticise  it,  I  should  be 
compelled  to  begin  a  long  treatise  on  Natural 
Theology  and  the  knowableness  of  God.  There 
they  are,  but  does  reason  bid  them  stay  there  or 
go  up  higher?  They  say  they  are  high  enough 
on  the  peak  of  reason,  but  it  is  not  the  pretty  things 
they  say  of  reason  that  count ;  it  is  what  reason 
bids  them  do.  She  cannot  acquiesce  in  her  own 
worship;  she  rends  her  garments  at  the  thought, 
and  bids  them  go  to  a  higher  mount  and  there 
adore  her  God  and  theirs.  If  they  would  only 
hearken  to  her  voice,  as  they  profess  to  do,  they 
would  go.  "  The  knowledge  of  God,"  says 
Bossuet,  "  is  the  most  certain  of  all  the  kinds  of 
knowledge  that  we  have  through  reasoning."  ^ 
The  old  Rationalism  gave  out  that  it  had  proved 
the  existence  of  God  from  reason.  The  whole  of 
the  then  learned  world,  which  had  eyes  as  keen  as 
ours  and  possibly  thoughts  far  deeper,^  was  satis- 

1  "La  connaissance  de  Dieu  est  la  plus  certaine  de  toutes  celles  que 
nous  avons  par  le  raisonnement  "  (Traite  du  libre  arbiire,  c.  iv.). 

2  Cardinal  Newman  expresses  the  same  opinion  far  more  strongly. 

S 


2  74  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

fied  on  examination  that  the  proofs  amounted  to 
demonstrations.  In  our  own  day  the  proofs  are 
said  to  be  no  proofs,  but  the  saying  is  all  we  can 
get  out  of  the  "  Rationalist " ;  the  proofs  are  not 
disproved.  In  other  branches  of  knowledge,  as  in 
astronomy,  the  old  ''proofs"  that  the  earth  was 
flat  or  stationary  have  been  manfully  tackled  and 
torn  to  pieces.  To  the  old  proofs  of  the  existence 
of  God,  drawn  from  causation,  this  honour  of 
refutation  has  not  been  accorded.  They  are 
flouted,  not  refuted,  and  the  Rationalist  who  joins 
in  the  jeering  chorus  is  really  engaged  in  giving 
battle  to  reason,  humouring  a  fashion  and  en- 
dorsing an  untruth. 

The  worst  offence  you  can  commit  against 
reason  is  to  discredit  and  give  the  lie  to  its  own 
protestations  that  it  came  from  God  and  is  under 
God.  The  reason  which  makes  us  rational  men 
and  thus  capable  of  offering  these  half-reasoned 
insults  to  oar  nature,  declares  that  the  autonomy 
claimed  for  it  is  a  fiction,  and  that  it  will  have 
nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Of  course,  if  reason  be  really  autonomous,  the 
flag  of  the  old  Rationalism  must  be  struck.  Then 
truly  is  queen-reason  supreme,  because  there  is  no 
reasonable  God  above  her.  Her  being  she  owes  to 
no  one.  Her  pre-eminence  is  her  own.  She  is  free 
as  the  air  to  say  what  she  lists  within  herself,  and 
to  prescribe  what  she  likes  to  her  subordinates,  to 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         275 

keep  them  in  check  if  she  so  desires,  or  to  give 
them  a  loose  rein.  She  is  equally  in  possession  of 
Home  Rule  and  Home  Misrule,  and  has  no  one  to 
thank  for  the  gift.  She  has  never  strayed, 
because  she  was  never  tethered ;  she  never  rebels, 
because  she  was  never  a  subject;  she  cannot.be 
called  unruly  or  ungoverned,  because  such  terms 
imply  a  relation  to  a  ruler  or  a  government,  and 
that  is  just  what  a  truly  autonomous  power  must 
repudiate — with  as  much  warmth  as  the  Principal 
of  the  University  of  X.,  who,  on  being  told  by  a 
common  constable  to  move  on,  remarked  that  he 
was  the  autonomous  head  of  an  autonomous 
institution — ''  which  is  all  rot,"  said  the  officer 
as  he  moved  him  on. 

You  have  heard  the  declaration  of  autonomy. 
I  am  not  going  to  subject  it  to  analysis,  still  less  to 
hold  it  up  to  scorn,  but  I  ask  you.  Is  this  the  voice 
of  reason  or  of  unreason  ^  Does  the  rational 
being  use  this  language,  or  the  irrational  ?  Does 
reason  know  that  it  is  a  product  of  a  higher 
reason,  as  surely  as  it  knows  that  a  watch  is  made 
by  a  watchmaker,^  and  life  comes  from  life  ?  It  is 
for  you  as  Rationalists  to  answer  the  question. 
And  if  you  reach  to  a  higher  reason  as  the 
efficient  cause  of  your  lower  one,  you  must  go  on 

1  Paley's  old  argument  about  the  watch  has  often  been  called 
"childish."  It  is  easy  to  call  it  names  but  hard  to  refute  it.  Feeble 
as  it  is  said  to  be,  it  is  stronger  than  the  attack  on  it  and  still  holds 
the  field. 


276  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

with  your  inquiry  till  you  touch  the  Highest 
Reason,  and  that  is  God  ;  and  if  God  has  or  rather 
is  Reason  Itself,  He  is  surely  at  liberty  to  express 
His  Reason  as  we  do  ours  in  language  spoken  or 
written,  and  to  enter  into  intimate  relationship 
with  men  through  a  Man  He  chooses  to  send. 
With  all  the  vigour  of  reason  in  you,  judge  of  the 
Life  of  this  Man,  who  was  wise  and  not  foolish, 
who  was  truthful  and  never  lied,  who  asserted  and 
proved  the  assertion,  that  He  was  sent  from  God, 
and  was  God,  and  to  be  obeyed  as  God. 

It  looks  as  if  the  Rationalist  was  becoming 
obedient  and  submissive.  Becoming !  He  was 
never  anything  else.  Reason  is  always  obedient 
to  something  higher  than  itself.  Only  unreason 
rebels.  To  wean  myself  and  you  from  this 
tempting  subject,  I  turn  to  the  splendours  of 
Ruskin. 

"Restraint  is  always  the  more  honourable.  .  .  . 
It  is  restraint  which  characterises  the  higher 
creature  and  betters  the  lower  creation.  From 
the  ministering  of  the  archangel  to  the  labour  of 
the  insect,  from  the  poising  of  a  planet  to  the 
gravitation  of  a  grain  of  dust,  the  power  and  glory 
of  all  creatures  and  all  matter  consists  in  their 
obedience,  not  in  their  freedom.  .  .  .  That 
principle  to  which  policy  owes  its  stability,  life 
its  happiness,  faith  its  acceptance,  and  creation 
its    continuance,    is    obedience.  .  .  .  That    is    a 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         277 

treacherous  phantom  which  men  call  liberty,  most 
treacherous  indeed  of  all  phantoms,  for  the 
feeblest  ray  of  reason  might  surely  show  us  that 
not  only  its  attainment  but  its  being  was 
impossible.  .  .  .  If  by  liberty  you  mean  chastise- 
ment of  the  passions,  discipline  of  the  intellect, 
subjection  of  the  will;  if  you  mean  the  fear  of 
inflicting,  the  shame  of  committing  wrong ;  if  you 
mean  respect  for  all  who  are  in  authority,  and 
consideration  for  all  who  are  in  dependence, 
veneration  for  the  good,  mercy  to  the  evil, 
sympathy  with  the  weak ;  if  you  mean  watchful- 
ness over  all  thoughts,  temperance  in  all  pleasures, 
and  perseverance  in  all  toils,  why  do  you  name 
this  by  the  same  word  by  which  the  luxurious 
mean  licence  and  the  reckless  mean  change,  by 
which  the  rogue  means  rapine  and  the  fool 
equality,  by  which  the  proud  mean  anarchy  and 
the  malignant  mean  violence  ?  Call  it  by  any  name 
rather  than  this,  but  its  best  and  truest  is 
Obedience." 

A  moment  ago  I  referred  to  the  proof  given 
by  Christ  of  His  Godhead,  and  meant,  of  course, 
the  Resurrection  of  His  dead  body.  That  is 
challenged,  and  by  Rationalists  too. 


278  ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 

IX.   The  Old  and  the  New  Rationalism 
Sub  Judice 

It  were  impossible  to  enter  here  into  the  question 
of  the  Resurrection,  but  I  cite  it  as  a  good  illustra- 
tion of  the  way  in  which  the  true  Rationalist  is 
often  called  on  to  decide  on  the  rationality  or 
irrationality  of  opposing  arguments.  There  is 
one  thing  he  is  not  allowed  to  do,  and  that  is, 
to  shirk  the  responsibility  of  thinking  for  himself, 
or  to  parry  all  appeal  to  his  own  reason  by  the 
cowardly  device  of  declaring  that  learned  men  are 
equally  divided  on  this  or  that  contentious  matter 
— and  who  is  he  to  decide  when  doctors  disagree  ? 

The  little  story  I  append  will  make  my  meaning 
clear,  and  will  also  give  me  an  opportunity  of  not 
supplying  you  with  a  solution  to  a  diiEculty  which 
you  can  solve  for  yourselves. 

Some  time  ago,  I  was  in  conversation  with  an 
intelligent  Lithuanian  Jew,  and  we  got  on  the 
subject  of  the  Resurrection  of  our  Lord.  My 
friend  rose  from  his  chair,  opened  a  drawer,  and 
turning  to  me,  said,  "  I  leave  this  gold  piece  here 
and  I  close  the  drawer.  In  a  few  hours  I  return, 
open  the  drawer,  and  lo!  the  coin  is  gone. 
What  am  I  to  conclude  '^.  This  and  this  only :  A 
thief  has  been  and  done  it.  So  was  it  with  the 
abstraction  of  the  body  of  your  Messiah." 

Straightway    the    words   of    another   Jew,    St 


THE  TRUE  RATIONALISM         279 

Matthew,  flashed  to  my  mind.  "  Say  ye,  His 
disciples  came  by  night  and  stole  Him  away  while 
we  slept  .  .  .  and  this  saying  was  spread  abroad 
among  the  Jews  and  endureth  until  this  day."^ 

Now,  it  is  clear  from  the  whole  trend  of  this 
lecture,  that  they  cannot  both  be  Rationalists — the 
man  who  upholds  and  the  man  who  denies  the 
Resurrection.  Who  is  to  judge  between  them? 
You,  with  your  reason ;  you,  as  Rationalists.  It 
is  for  you  to  say,  in  all  these  attacks  on  Christianity, 
which  is  the  man  who  is  using  his  reason  and 
which  the  man  who  is  unconsciously  blindfolding 
it.  And  I  say  it  without  fear  of  challenge  or 
contradiction,  that  there  are  scores  of  modern 
theories  against  the  Resurrection,  that  are  no 
better  or  no  worse  than  the  chest-of-drawers 
argument  of  my  Hebrew  friend.  The  evidence 
is  before  you — that  I  take  for  granted — and  you 
are  required,  as  I  was  required  in  that  little  inci- 
dent, to  keep  your  reason  on  the  judicial  bench,  to 
come  to  a  well-balanced  decision,  and  to  establish 
yourselves,  even  if  you  fail  to  win  others,  in 
Rationalism  and  Truth. 

1  Matt,  xxviii.  13,  15. 


INDICES 


(a)  GENERAL  INDEX 


Abraham,  importance  of,  121 
Abyssinia,    Christianity  non-pro- 
gressive in,  52 
Achsans,  119  ;  ethic  of,  46 
Adamic  pre-religion,  43 
Adonis,  83 

Adoptionist  heresy,  141 
iEschylus  and  monotheism,  124 
Agnosticism  Qv,  science,  religion)  : 
arises  from  Kant,   196  ;  defined, 
217;     a    creed,    217,     219;     a 
method,  217,  221  ;  contribution 
to  religion,  226;  purpose  of,  a 
scheme  of  life,  218,  232 
Ahab,    a    subverter    of    Jehovah- 
worship,  122 
Akbar  of  India,  64 
Alcott,  Bronson,  167 
Alexander  III. ;  destroys  isolation 

of  the  nations,  102,  124 
Amenhetep  IV.  of  Egypt,  118 
Amitabha,  Buddhist  deity,  80 
Anezeh,  Arabian  tribe,  118 
animism,  70 ;  supreme  at  dawn  of 
history,    loi  ;    origin    of,    no; 
progress    of,     112;     introduced 
spiritual  view  of  the  universe, 

71 
Apostles'  Creed,  qtd.,  153 
Apuleius,  qtd.,  102 
Aquinas  Qv.  Thomas) 
Arabia,  115,  118 
Aristides,  Apology  of,  qtd.,  152 
Aristotle,  237,  239,  249,  252,  256, 

262 
Arius  and  Arianism,  147,  153 
Arnold,  Matthew,  qtd.,  174,  244 
Ascham,  qtd.,  40 


Asshur,  god,  117,  123 

Assyria,  117,  123 

Astruc,  qtd.,  58 

Aten,  god,  118 

Athanasius,  Creed  of,  142 

Athens,  scepticism  at,  39 

atonement  {y.  religion,  etc.) :  in 
savage  religion,  81  ;  its  import- 
ance in  religion,  12,  95 

Attis,  83 

Augustine,  qtd.,  64,  128,  162,  242, 
243,  244,  245 

authority :  justifiable  basis  for 
religion,  37  ;  only  logical  basis 
of  revelation,  47;  used  in  science, 

35 
Avila,  Juan  d',  qtd.,  165 

Babylonia,  80,  117,  119,  124 

Bacon,  qtd.,  34,  40 

Bagehot,  W.,  qtd.,  no 

Baillie,  Robert,  240 

baptism  of  Jesus,  139 

Barabbas,  Frazer  on,  84 

Barton,  G.  A.,  qtd.,  115 

Bel,  god,  117 

Bible  in  modernism,  25 

Blatchford,  Robert,  242 

Bossuet,  qtd.,  273 

Brahma,  52 

Britain,  ancient,  124 

Browning,  qtd.,  97,  180,  187,  211 

Bruce,  A.  B.,  qtd.,  170,  181 

Bryce,  James,  qtd.,  121 

Buddha  and  Buddhism,  52,  68 
leading  idea  of,  73  ;  atheistic 
74 ;  compared  with  Christianity 
92 


282 


ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 


Bull,  Bishop,  qtd.,  152 
Butler,  qtd,,  245 

Byzantium,  Christian,  non-pro- 
gressive, 52 

CiESAR,  qtd.,  81 

Caird,  Edward,  185,  199;  qtd., 
200 

Calderwood,  David,  qtd.,  158 

Calvinism,  144 

Carlyle,  qtd.,  33,  107,  167 

Cauchy,  22 

Celsus,  qtd.,  166 

Celts,  81,  82 

Christ  (n).  Jesus),  signification  of 
word,  139 

Christianity  Qv.  religion,  Jesus, 
etc.):  strivings  after,  91;  is  a 
development,  94;  its  doctrines 
found  in  savage  belief,  80-83, 
131;  not  therefore  false,  83; 
have  ethical  meaning,  86  ;  their 
likeness  to  savage  beliefs  not 
merely  accident,  87;  other  creeds 
a  preparation  for,  87  ;  importance 
of  its  coming,  119;  came  to 
fulfil,  92,  130;  its  triumph,  126  ; 
must  still  evolve,  96,  128; 
universality  of,  128  ;  proofs  of, 
128;  finality  of,  73;  Maurice's 
view,52;  objections  to  that  view, 
53;  nobility  of,  90;  but  not  super- 
natural, 132,  133;  fundamentals 
of,  29 ;  can  accept  no  compromise 
in  dogma,  137;  contributions 
of,  to  knowledge,  230 

Cicero,  qtd.,  182 

Clerk  Maxwell,  22 

Coleridge,  186 

comparative  hierology,  religion 
Qv.  hierology,  religion) 

Comte,  qtd.,  65 

Confucius,  69;  and  Christianity,  93 

Constantinople,  fall  of,  119 

corn  gods,  80 

<'  Covent  Garden  "  theory,  66 

criticism,  historical,  2oi  ;  of  the 
Gospels,  165 

Crusades,  scepticism  in  time  of,  39 

Cynics,  124 


David,  a  Jehovah  worshipper,  122 

Darwin,  rejects  divinity  of  Jesus, 
225 

deism  :  attacks  priest-religion,  75 

Descartes,  190,  191 

Didache,  the,  152 

Dill,  S.,  qtd.,  103,  105,  124,  126 

Dionysos,  83 

Dods,  M.,  qtd.,  104 

dogmatism :  a  failing  of  the 
scientist  as  well  as  the  religion- 
ist, 7,  35,  227 

Doughty,  C.  M.,qtd.,  115 

Driver,  S.  R.,  qtd.,  58 

Druids,  125 

dualism,  and  Kant,  195 

Dupuis,  C,  qtd.,  106 

Ea,  god,  his  characteristics  and 
history,  1 19, 120 ;  is  he  Jehovah  ? 
120 

Egypt,  ancient,  80,  82,  118 

Elijah,  importance  of,  122 

Elizabeth,  scepticism  in  reign  of,  40 

Emerson,  qtd.,  64 

Eridu,  119 

ethic :  proof  of  revelation,  46 ; 
of  Hebrews,  etc.,  46 

ethics  :  Jesus  in,  227 

evangelicalism,  disregard  of  law 
by,  12 

evolution,  and  God  of  orthodoxy, 
44 ;  and  Jesus,  14 ;  renders 
Perfect-Man  theory  untenable, 
179  ;  and  revealed  religion,  90  ; 
unreasonable,  of  evolutionists, 90 

FAITH  opposed  to  science,  22 ;  in 
modernism,  26  ;  contribution  to 
knowledge,  28 

fatherhood  of  God,  doctrine  of, 
derived  from  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  147 ;  Unitarian  view 
of,  148 

Fiske,  qtd.,  220 

forgiveness,  and  science,  12 

Fotherby,  Bishop,  qtd.,  40 

France,  wars  of  religion  in,  40 

Frazer,  J.  G.,  66;  his  theory  of 
Jesus,  84 


INDICES 


283 


future  life:  universality  of  belief 
in,  95  ;  silence  of  Jesus  on,  95  ; 
the  theological  dogma  of,  95 

Galileo,  case  of,  30,  173 

Gaul,  ancient,  8i,  102 

Genesis  (v.  O.T.  Citations);  and 
revelation,  44;  and  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  149 

Ghost,  Holy,  138,  139 

Gibbon,  qtd.,  103 

Gillon,  E.  C,  qtd.,  128 

Gladstone,  W.  E.,  qtd.,  46 

God  (v.  religion,  Jesus,  etc.):  a 
God  before  animism,  70  ;  origin 
of  idea  of,  70,  loi  ;  how^  evolved 
from  animism,  71  ;  nature  o{  (v. 
Trinity),  137;  all  religion  a 
witness  to,  88,  and  preparation 
for  Christianity,  87,  88  ;  union 
with,  end  of  religion,  77  ;  man's 
departures  from,  orthodox  view 
of,  43  ;  unity  of,  9  ;  ecclesiastical 
conception  of,  10;  in  Agnosti- 
cism, 218-20,  229;  existence  of, 
implied  by  Rationalism,  274; 
assailed  only  by  false  Rational- 
ism, 274 

gods  (v.  Adonis,  Attis,  Ea,  etc.), 
origin  of,  70,  10 1  ;  corn-gods, 
80  ;   national  gods,  loi 

Goethe,  i86,  193 

Gospels  (a;.  Jesus),credibility  of,  1 6 1 , 
204;  their  portrait  of  Jesus,  164, 
204;  spirit  of  criticism  of,  165 

Greece,  scepticism  in,  39 

Greek  Church,  144 

Green,  T.  H.,  qtd.,  174 

Gwatkin,  H.  M.,  qtd.,  9 

Haddon,  a.  C,  qtd.,  128 

Halevy,  F.,  119 

Hall,  H.  R.,qtd.,  119 

Haman,  Eraser  on,  84 

Haran,  120 

Harnack,  201 

Hastings'    Dictionary   of  the    Bible, 

qtd.,  104,  115,  Ii8,  119 
Hegel  {v.  idealism,  etc.),  107,  186, 

192,  199,  200 
Henderson,  Alexander,  145 


henotheism,  117 

Herbert,  Lord,  of  Cherbury,  qtd., 
40,  42 

George,  qtd.,  158 

Herder,  qtd.,  106 

Herodotus,  64;  qtd.,  102 

hierology,  comparative  (1;.  re- 
ligion); and  revelation  (<!;.  reve- 
lation) ;  study  of,  a  cause  of 
scepticism,  41 

Hill,  Principal,  qtd.,  1 53 

Hindu  religion,  52,  53,  80,  82  ;  and 
Christianity,  92 

historic  spirit,  190,  194 

Homeric  Achasans,  ethic  of,  46 

Hommel,  F.,  119 

Hooker,  qtd.,  40 

Hosius  of  Cordova,  153 

Hume's  argument  on  miracles,  re- 
jected by  Agnosticism,  226 

Hutton,  qtd.,  177 

Huxley  and  Agnosticism,  217,  221, 
223',  226 

IDEALISM,  185,  186,  195,  199;  and 
Jesus,  185,  202,  214 

ideas,  origin  of,  257 ;  superiority 
over  matter,  260 

Ignatius,  qtd.,  177 

immanence,  divine,  and  Hegel,  187, 
260 

immortality  (v.  future  life,religion) 
in  early  religions,  82 

incarnation  :  in  Polynesian  mytho- 
logy, 80  ;  in  Buddhism,  80  ;  in 
Hinduism,  etc.,  81 

individualism,  and  the  Trinity,  158 

investigation  of  religion,  103 

Ionia,  scepticism  in,  39 

Isis,  125 

J.^MES,  Professor,  qtd.,  54,  66 

James  I.,  scepticism  in  reign  of,  40 

Japp,  A.  H.,  qtd.,  I20 

Jastrow,  M.,  119 

Jeannin,  qtd.,  40 

Jehovah  (<y.  God,  Jesus,  etc.):  loi; 
origin  of,  120;  in  Babylonian 
mythology,  120;  his  worship, 
120;  at  Sinai,  120;  his  land, 
121  ;  his  priests,  121  ;  becomes 


284 


ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 


God  of  Jews,  122  ;  struggle  for 
supremacy,  122;  transplanted 
to  heaven,  121  ;  becomes  God, 
123, 124 

Jesus,  person  of,  his  birth,  210; 
historicity  of,  228;  baptism,  239; 
his  teaching  on  God,  138  ;  on 
the  Trinity,  141  ;  his  sinless- 
ness,  165,  168  ;  his  uniqueness, 
169  ;  absence  of  national  charac- 
teristics in,  17 1  ;  his  attitude  to 
his  times,  172;  his  absolute- 
ness, 174,  241  ;  death  of,  Frazer 
on,  84;  futility  of  it,  85;  re- 
surrection of,  challenged  by 
Rationalism,  278,  279 

not  accounted  for  by  Natural- 
ism, 179;  not  the  supreme  re- 
ligious genius,  180;  himself 
miracle,  181,  and  evolution, 
14,  179;  divinity  of,  161,  etc, 
208;  difficulty  of  divinity  of,  224; 
historical  evidence  of  little  value 
in,  224 ;  himself  the  best  evi- 
dence, 163,  177,  213;  contribu- 
tion to  ethics,  227;  made  religion 
universal,  94;  personality  of, 
202,  207,  211 

the    evangelic    Jesus,    163  ; 

limited  by  the  Gospels,  178  ; 
Gospel  estimate  of,  204,  differs 
from  ours,  205  ;  and  Idealism, 
185,  202 

religion  of  (y.  Christianity) : 

originates  in  Judaism,  104,  125; 
characteristics  of,  125;  struggle 
for  existence,  125;  incorporates 
all  that  is  best  in  other  religions, 
129;  excrescences,  etc.  of,  130; 
not  a  development  but  ethical  at 
first,  86  ;  spirituality  of  dogmas 
of,  86;  results,  etc.  of,  130 

Jevons,  F.  B. ,  qtd.,  41,  42 

Judaism,  73,  104;  Jahve  w^orship  in, 
122  ;  becomes  monolatry,  123  ; 
dispersion  of,  124;  produces  re- 
ligion of  Jesus,  125  ;  modern 
Judaism,  147  ;  its  God  a  barren 
unity,  147 

Julian  and  Christianity,  126,  130 


Kant,  190  ;  introduces  transcen- 
dentalism, 186,  195;  his  dualism, 
191,196,197;  his  Agnosticism, 
196,  198  ;  and  Aristotle,  262,  265 

kathenotheism,  117,  122 

Kelvin,  Lord,  21,  255 

kings,  deification  of,  80 

knowledge,  advance  of,  fatal  to  re- 
ligion, 23  ;  Christianity's  con- 
tribution to,  230  ;  faith's  contri- 
bution to,  28 

Knox,  John,  145 

La  Bruyere,  qtd.,  40 
Lamb,  Charles,  qtd.,  231 
Lang,  Andrew,  qtd.,  41,  70,  no 
Lao  Tsze,  69  ;  and  Christianity,  93 
La  Place,  34 

law,  need  of  emphasis  on,  12  ;  dis- 
regarded by  Evangelicalism,  12 
Lecky,W.  E.  H.,  qtd.,  218 
Lessing,  qtd.,  43,  107 
Lewes,  G.  H. ,  qtd.,  230 
Liberius  of  Rome,  153 
Liouville,  qtd.,  34 
Locke,  190,  191 
logos,  the,  211,  212 
Lucretius,  qtd.,  no 
Lutherans,  144 

MacCulloch,  J.  A.,  qtd.,  41,  117 
M'Curdy,  J.,  qtd.,  119 
Macedonianism,  154 
Machen,  Arthur,  qtd.,  66 
magic  (-y.  religion),  116 
Manchester,  Chair  of  Comparative 

Religion  at,  107 
Mannhardt,  qtd.,  66 
Margoliouth,  D.,  qtd.,  120 
Mason,  Canon,  qtd.,  146,  157 
Maurice,  F.  D.,  qtd. ,49,  51,  53,107 
Mazzini,  qtd.,  11 
materialism,  253  ;  and  rationalism, 

253-56  ;  the  true,  256 
Melkart,  122 
Middlemarch,  qtd.,  76 
Mill,  J.  S.,qtd.,  260 
Millet,  Francois,  187 
Milman,  H.  H,,  qtd.,  103 
miracle ;  demanded  by  age  of  Jesus, 


INDICES 


285 


206  ;  Jesus  the,  i8i  ;  and  revela- 
tion, 46 

Mithra,  103,  124,  126 

modernism,  23  ;  destroys  religion, 
24-26  ;  is  irrational,  27,  244 

Mohammed,  69 

Mohammedanism,  118  ;  its  idea, 
78  ;  its  characteristics,  127, 
147;  Moslem  lands  progressive 
though  non-Christian,  52 

monodynamism,  9 

monolatry,  117,  122 

monopersonalism,  141 

monotheism,  use  of,  71,  117,  123, 
124;  in  science  and  religion,  9 

Moors,warwith  Christian  Spain,  39 

Mordecai,  Frazer  on,  84 

Morley,  Lord,  qtd. ,  9 

Moses  and  the  Pentateuch,  58 

MuUer,  Max,  qtd.,  65 

NaThanael,  his  finding  of  Jesus,i63 

naturalism,  only  refuge  for  com- 
parative hierologists,  56 ;  its 
theory  of  Jesus  refuted  by  evolu- 
tion, 179 

Newman,  J.  H.,  qtd.,  17,  28,  273 

New  Theology  (v.  modernism j,  23 

Nicaea,  144,  145 

Noldeke,  Theodor,  qtd.,  115 

Novatian,  qtd.,  153 

Old  Testament  and  doctrine  of  the 

Trinity,  149 
Origen,  qtd.,  166 
Osiris,  52,  80,  83 

Paley,  qtd.,  275 

Parsees,  46,  82 

Pasteur,  22 

Paton,  L.  B.,  qtd.,  118 

Paul  (y.  N.T.  Citations):  a  com- 
parative religionist,  64,  104; 
nationality  always  betrays  it- 
self in,  171  ;  his  philosophy  of 

Jesus,   210,   212 

Paul  of  Samosata,  183;  persecution  : 
marks  triumph  of  Christianity, 
104 

Peripatetics,  237,  240,  250 


Persia,  39,  124 

Persiphone,  83 

Peru,  80 

Petrie,  W.  M.  Flinders,  qtd.,  118 

Petronius,  qtd.,  iii 

Pfleiderer,  O.,  qtd.,  171 

philosophy,    importance  of,    188; 

necessary  to  science,  188  ;  denies 

the  Unknowable,  189,  219 
Picard,  B.,  qtd.,  106 
Pinsero,    Professor,    his    theory    of 

snake  religion,  68 
Pius  X.  and  the  Encyclical,  27 
Plato,  qtd.,  256  ;  and  monotheism, 

124;  and  Jesus,  173,  176 
Plutarch,  qtd.,  103 
Polybius,  qtd.,  105 
Polynesia,  80 

Pope,  Alexander,  qtd.,  247 
priest  (-y.  religion,  Jesus),  hatred 

of,  74,  106 
prophecy,  as  proof  of  revelation, 

rejected,  45 
proselytism,  103 
provincialism  in  theology,  10 

Ramsay,  W.  M.,  qtd.,  104 
rationalism,  has  no  plural,  238  ;  the 
true,  its  history,  239,  etc.  ;   or 
foolishness,  no  tertium  quid,  240  ; 
its    character,    243 ;    an   ally  of 
religion,  243  ;  necessity  of,  245  ; 
headship  of,  248,  268,  270;  and 
materialism,  270  ;  acknowledges 
God    as     head,     273 ;     the    old 
rationalism   {nj.  Aristotle,   etc.) 
and  the  new,  277 
reason  (1;.  rationalism):   inerrant, 
249;    proofs  of  this,   251,   261- 
63 ;    but    corrupted,    267 ;    its 
supremacy,  268  ;  but  subject  to 
God,  276  ;  implies  obedience  to 
something  higher,  276 
Reformation,  the,  factor  in  syncre- 
tism, 130 
religion,  religion  of  Jesus  {y.  Jesus) 

\\\%tox-^  oi,(i%  et seq.,\o%  etseq. 

importance  of  Semites  in,  115 
importance  of  Judaism  in,  124 
importance  of  Rome  in,  124 


286 


ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 


religion,  a  universal  phenomenon, 
67,  109  ;  extends  to  animals,  68  ; 
a  continual  progress,  6,  68,  78, 
97,  109 ;  an  intieritance,  108 ; 
modified  by  experience,  108 ; 
caused  by  fear  and  desire  for 
union  with  deity,  iii  ;  rites  in, 
113;  the  priest  in,  76,  106,  113  ; 
hostility  of  deism  to  priest  re- 
ligion, 75  ;  element  of  terror  in, 
76,  77;  levels  of,  128  ;  different 
religions,  problem  of,  in,  102;  a 
factor  of  civilisation,  1 27  ;  Chris- 
tianity the  supreme,  128;  collec- 
tive religion,  55 ;  revealed,  (1;.  re- 
velation); should  be  spiritual,  107; 
as  real  a  field  of  study  as  science, 
4,  5  ;  not  a  completed  thing,  6  ; 
debt  of,  to  science,  8;  debt  of,  to 
Agnosticism,  227  ;  is  allied  with 
Rationalism,  243  ;  has  different 
data  from  science,  4,  15  ;  neces- 
sary to  scientist,  15  ;  not  opposed 
to  science,  21,  but  to  scientific 
theories,  32 ;  nor  to  advance 
of  knowledge,  23 ;  fundamental 
facts  of,  28 ;  as  conceived  by 
Modernism,  24-26 

comparative,   study   of,    41  ; 

origin  of,  41-44,  63-70,  102-108  ; 
assistance  of  research,  etc.,  to, 
107;  widespread,    108;  import- 
ance   of,     68,    70 ;    shows    the 
preparation  of  Christianity,  87  ; 
sets  foundations  of  Christianity 
firmer,   94-96 ;    fatal   to    super- 
naturalism,  56,  57 
Renan,  qtd.,  166,  171 
resurrection,  82  ;  in  early  religion, 
82  ;  and  the  rebirth  in  spring,  83 
resurrection  of  Jesus  (v.  Jesus) 
retribution,     importance     of,     in 

science  and  religion,  12 
revelation,  138;  at  variance  with 
science,  22  ;  defined,  90  ;  com- 
parative religion  and, 90;  theories 
of,  42,  47,  routed  by  comparative 
theology,  43, 44 ;  narrowness  of, 
44  ;  has  no  authority  except  the 
person  who  receives  it,  45  ;  claim 


to  universality,  45  :  arguments 
for,  45  ;  difficulties  of,  48  ;  test 
of  religious  experience  not  con- 
clusive, 54;  doctrine  of,  de- 
molished by  its  adherents,  58 

Ritschl,  201 

Romanes,  G.  J.,  qtd.,  172,  181,  225 

Rome,  destroys  isolation  of  nations, 
102,  124 

Ross,  Alexander,  qtd.,  105 

Rothe,  qtd.,  177 

Rousseau,  qtd.,  no 

Ruskin,  qtd.,  115,  276 

Sabatier,  201 

Sabellianism,  141,  147,  153,    154, 

sanctuaries  in  religion,  113 

Sanday,  W.,  qtd.,  58 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  qtd.,  115 

Scandinavia,  idea  of  religion  of,  93 

scepticism,  fostered  by  research 
into  other  religions,  39,  40 ;  by 
religious  wars,  40 

Schiller,  qtd.,  247 

Schmiedel,  Professor,  qtd.,  161 

science,  relation  to  religion,  3-17; 
hostility  to  religion,  6,  21  ;  its 
use  in  religion,  8 ;  its  debt  to 
religion,  15;  and  religion  in 
Modernism,  24 ;  has  no  real  op- 
position to  religion,  27 ;  mys- 
teries in,  29;  divisions  in,  30; 
has  "theories,"  31;  necessary 
to  philosophy,  188;  and  Ag- 
nosticism, 223 

Scott,  Sir  G.,  248 

Sir  Walter,  193 

Semites,  religion  of,  115;  charac- 
teristics of,  116;  exodus  of,  118 

separateness  of  Jews,  46  ;  in  revela- 
tion, 45 

Shakspere,  qtd.,  220 

Shammai,  Arabian  clan,  118 

Shelley,  qtd.,  74 

Simon,  Father,  qtd.,  58 

Simson,  John,  Professor,  145 

sin,  belief  in,  and  religion,  85 

Sin  :   god,  119 

Sinai,  and  Jehovah,  120 


INDICES 


287 


Smith,  G.  A.,  qtd.,  118,  149 

W.  R.,qtd.,  IIS 

Spencer,  B.,  qtd.,  128 

Spencer,    Herbert,    qtd,,    65,    113, 

201,  217,  219,  221,   222,  230    (v. 

Agnosticism) 

Dr  John,  42,  57 

Spinoza,  58;   qtd.,  107 
Stevenson,  R.  L.,  qtd.,  63 
Stokes,  22 

Sumero- Akkadians,  119 
superstition,     key      to      religious 

thought,  72 
syncretism,  102,  126 

Tacitus,  qtd.,  102 

Tennyson,  qtd.,  88,  187 

Thammuz,  83 

Theology  (v.  religion,  etc.): 
always  progressive,  7 ;  not  de- 
partmental, 10 

Theophiius  of  Antioch,  qtd.,  153 

Thomas  Aquinas,  a  Rationalist, 
qtd.,  237,  239,  242,  243,  256,  271 

Tokio,  chair  of  comparative  re- 
ligion at,  107 

Toland,  75,  106 

Tolstoi",  qtd.,  164 

totemism,  66,  112 

transcendentalism  (y.  Kant,  etc.), 
i86 

Trinity,  155;  persons  of,  138-40; 
in  the  Church,  141  ;  in  the 
Fathers,  152;  in  the  Athanasian 
Creed,  142  ;  is  doctrine  of,  scrip- 
tural? 148-50;  made  a  stumb- 
ling block,  147  ;  error  in  regard 
to,  153  ;  purpose  of  doctrine  of. 


155  ;    its  importance,   145  ;    its 

prevalence,  144 
tritheism,  147,  154 
Turner,  187 
Tylor,  E.  B.,  qtd.,  109,  iii 

UNION   with  God  end  of  religion, 

77 
Unitarianism,  147 
unity  of  God,  9 
unity  of  the  race,   ii  ;  denied    by 

ecclesiasticism,  1 1 
unity  of  self,  198 
Ur-Kashdim,  120 

Virgin     birth,     210;      in     other 

religions,  80 
Vishnu,  80,  86 
Volney,  qtd.,  74 
Voltaire,  qtd.,  106 

Waggett,  Father,  qtd.,  16 
Wagner,  187 
Watts,  G.  F.,  187 
Westminster  Confession,  145 
Whitehouse,  O.  C,  qtd.,  104 
will  to  believe,  54 
Woden,  125 
Wordsworth,  qtd.,  i86,  187,  195 

YA  =  Jehovah?  120 
Yorkshire,  Isis-worship  in,  125 

Zarathushtra,  69 
Zidon,  Melkart-worship  in,  122 
Zoroastrianism  and   Christianity, 
93 


IB)  INDEX  OF   OLD   TESTAMENT  PASSAGES 
CITED 


Genesis 

i.  26. 
iii.  22 

H3, 

PAGE 
156 
149 

Exodus 

iii.  1   . 
iii.  19 

PAGE 
120 
120 

xi.  7  . 
xviii.  2 

3 

10 

149 
149 

iv.  27 
xviii.  5 

120 
120 

xxii.  2 
xlviii.  I 

5. 

i6 

121 

149 

xxiv.   12 
xxiv.  15 

120 
121 

288 


ST  NINIAN  LECTURES 


Exodus  xxiv.  17 

PAGE 
121 

Psalms  Ixviii.  17      . 

PAGE 
120 

Numbers  vi.  24-26    . 

149 

„       Ixxii.    . 

149 

„       X.  33 
Deuteronomy  vi.  4  . 

120 
140,    150 

,,        ex.  I     . 
Proverbs  viii.    . 

149 
149 

„             ix.  15 

121 

Isaiah  vi.  3,  8  . 

149 

,,             xxxiii   2 

120 

,,      ix. 

149 

Judges  V.  5        . 
Ruth  i.  6           . 

120 
lOI 

,,      ix.  6      . 
Jeremiah  ii.  10,  11    . 

205 
101 

I  Kings  xviii.  27 

122 

Hosea  ii.  19,  20 

149 

2  Kings  xviii.  34 
Nehemiah  ix.  13 

123 
121 

Haggai  ii.  7      . 
Zechariah  vii,  9,  10 

172 
149 

Psalms  xxxiii.  6 

149 

„         xiii.  7       . 

149 

,,       xlv.      . 

149 

(7)   INDEX  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  PASSAGES 
CITED 


Matthew  iii.  16,  17. 

139 

John  vii.  27      . 

206 

„         V.  17 

209,  213 

„     viii.  12     . 

^31 

X.  37 

169 

„     viii.  46     . 

165 

X.  44 

168 

„     X.  16        . 

'57 

xi.  27 

139 

„     X.  30        . 

150 

„         xvi.  IS      . 

138 

„     xiv.-xvi. 

i39»i5o 

xvi.  17      . 

208 

„     xiv.  6       . 

94,  231 

„            Xvii.  21        . 

170 

„     xiv.  9,  11 

150 

XX.  28          . 

168 

;,        xvi. 

15 

xxii.  42     . 

'f. 

„     xvii.  4     . 

165 

„          XXV.  31       . 

168 

„     xvii.  23   . 

»57 

,,          xxviii.  13,  15 

279 

Acts  V.  3,  4      . 

^50 

,,          xxviii    19  . 

140 

Romans  iv.  24,  25    . 

151 

Mark  iv.  29     . 

170 

,,        viii.  2 

'51 

„      xii.  29,  30      . 

140, 151 

,,        viii.  11 

15' 

„      xiv.  62  . 

212 

,,        ix.  1-5 

171 

Luke  xiv.  26     . 

.          169 

I  Corinthians  iii.  11 

145 

„     xxiv.  27  . 

168 

„         viii.  4,  6 

151 

John  i.  1-3 

151 

„             X.  17. 

'5' 

„     i.  14 

214 

„             XV.  3  . 

15' 

„     i.  18          .          . 

.          »38 

Galatians  iii.  8 

151 

„     i.  31 

139 

Ephesians  iv.  4 

157 

»     i-  34 

139 

„         iv.  6 

151,  '57 

„     i.  49 

.          163 

Philippians  iii.  4-7    . 

171 

„     iv.  22 

141 

Colossians  i.  16 

151 

„     v.  17 

150 

Hebrews  i.  2    . 

151 

„      V.    18            . 

150, 169 

I  Peter  ii.  24    . 

151 

„     vi.  3 

151 

2  Peter  i.  21     . 

'51 

„     vi.  63       . 

171 

GLASGOW  UNIVERSITY  SOCIETY 
OF  ST  NINIAN 


SYLLABUS  1907-08 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION 

Nov.    4th.  Inaugural  Address — Rev.  G.  A.  Johnston  Ross 

M.A.,  Cambridge. 
Nov.     5th.  Professor  Henry  Jones,  LL.D.,  D.Litt, 
Nov.  nth.  Father  W.  J.  Crofton,  S.J.,  M.A. 
Nov.  14th.  Professor  J.  Y.  Simpson,  D.Sc. 
Nov.  19th.  Mr  Bolton  Smart,  Superintendent,  Hollesley  Bay 

Labour  Colony,  Suffolk. 
Nov.   2 1  St.  Public  Discussion. 

COMPARATIVE  RELIGION 

Nov.  25th.  Mr   J.   M.    Robertson,  M.P.,   Rationalist    Press 

Association. 
Dec.    3rd.  Canon  J.  A.  MacCulloch,  Portree. 
Dec.    6th.  Rev.  Professor  H.  M.  B.  Reid,  D.D. 
Dec.  loth.   Rev.  Gordon  Clark,  Perth. 
Dec.  1 2th.  Public  Discussion. 

CENTRAL  TRUTHS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

Jan.  loth.  Rev.  Professor  Jas.  Cooper,  D.D.,  "  The  Doctrine 
of  the  Trinity." 

Jan.     14th.   Rev.  David  Smith,  M.A.,  "Divinity  of  Christ." 

Jan.  2ist.  Rev.  Professor  James  Denney,  D.D.,  "Atone- 
ment." 

Jan.    28th.  Public  Discussion. 

MODERN  AGNOSTICISM 

Feb.     6th.  Rev.  J.  Robertson  Cameron,  M.A. 
Feb.   nth.   Rev.  P.  Carnegie  Simpson,  M.A. 
Feb.   1 8th.  Father  Power,  S.J.,  B.A. 
Feb.  25th.  Public  Discussion. 

W.  L.  MARSH, 

Convener, 


GLASGOW  UNIVERSITY  SOCIETY 
OF  ST   NINIAN 


SYLLABUS  1908-09 


Nov.     3rd.  Inaugural  Address — Rev.  W.  Robertson  Nicoll, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  London. 

SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION 
Nov.  17th.  Rev.  W.  L.  Walker,  Shettleston. 
Nov.  23rd.  Principal  A.  E.  Garvie,  D.D.,  London. 
Nov.  30th.  Joseph  M*Cabe,  Esq.,  London. 
Dec.     9th.  Professor  J.  Estlin  Carpenter,  LL.D.,  Oxford. 
Dec.  nth.  Public  Discussion. 

THE  HISTORIC  JESUS 
Jan.     1 2th.  Canon  J.  A.  MacCulloch,  Portree. 
Jan.    19th.  Professor  Sir  W.  M.  Ramsay,  LL.D,  Aberdeen. 
Jan.    29th.  Public  Discussion. 

THE  RELIGION  OF  JESUS 
Feb.     3rd.   Rev.  Father  Gerard,  S.J.,  London. 
Feb.     8th.  Rev.  David  Smith,  D.D.,  Blairgowrie. 
Feb.   1 6th.  Rev.  James  Moffatt,  D.D.,  Broughty  Ferry. 
Feb.   26th.   Rev.  George  Milligan,  D.D.,  Caputh. 
Mar.     3rd.  Rev.  J.  Warschauer,  Ph.D.,  London. 
Mar.     5th.  PubHc  Discussion. 

R.  T.  CLARK, 

Secretary. 


PRINTED  BY 

TURNBULL  AND   SPEARS, 

EDINBURGH 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


^3Fcb'53BW 


^^-'-■''^ 


VtB9 


LD  21-100m-ll,'49(B7146sl6)476 


^: 


